Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Shipbuilding

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will detail the vessels which are being constructed in United Kingdom shipyards with financial assistance provided by way of the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): On 31 March 1991, 42 vessels were being constructed in United Kingdom shipyards with support from the shipbuilders intervention fund in England and Scotland and from intervention grant aid in Northern Ireland. This represents a total tonnage of 586,971 tonnes and a total value of £654·7 million. Assistance contributes £116·4 million or 17·8 per cent.

Dr. Godman: May I thank the Minister for his generous efforts on behalf of Scott Lithgow in attempting to have that shipyard redesignated for intervention subsidy? I am angry and deeply disappointed about the miserly reaction of Sir Leon Brittan. That conceited Commissioner should be told that United Kingdom shipyards deserve the same sympathy as is shown to the shipyards of other nations. Will the Minister use his good offices, and those of his colleagues in the Department of Energy, to ensure that Scott Lithgow obtains some of the offshore work? That must be better than such work going outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his plaudits. He is right that we approached Sir Leon Brittan, who told me when he came to see me last month that he was unable to compromise on the matter and that shipbuiding intervention funds would not be available to Scott Lithgow under article 7 of the seventh directive until 1994. I shall certainly approach my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy on behalf of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman may have been a bit harsh on Sir Leon Brittan, who faces demands from the rest of the

Community for increases in shipbuilding subsidy. There is also a problem in the German shipyards as the German Government have decided to give no subsidy whatever to any shipyards in what was West Germany.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate the Minister and ask him to confirm that the restructuring of British shipbuilding means that it is imperative that other European nations continue to reduce their subsidies so that we have a level playing field. He knows my deep interest in Appledore shipyard. Will he confirm that his Department is doing everything that it can to help that small shipyard on which so much employment regeneration rests?

Mr. Leigh: I know that my hon. Friend, who has come to see me on the matter, speaks up strongly on behalf of Appledore yard in her constituency.

Mr. Morgan: What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Leigh: I shall tell the House what I am going to do about it. Appledore is in receipt of shipbuilding intervention funds and if it were to apply for the home credit guarantees schemes, we would consider that. My hon. Friend is right. The figures that I read out show that we subsidise shipbuilding to the maximum extent allowed by the European Commission. Given the problems of the former warship yards, particularly Swan Hunter and Cammell Laird—I see the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his place—it is clearly in the interests of those yards that we end subsidies as quickly as possible.

Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of the stewards at Lairds, may I thank the Minister for his efforts in trying to secure intervention funding? The stewards have asked me to ask the Minister whether they are right in assuming that the British Government pay the intervention funding, not the European Commission. The stewards wish to know what would happen if the British Government decided to pay the intervention funding without the approval of the Commission.

Mr. Leigh: It is indeed the British Government who pay the intervention funding. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to do something difficult which we have not considered doing before—to go against the explicit direction of the European Commission. For such a communautaire Government as we are, that would be an inappropriate and wrong thing to do.

Kuwait (Contracts)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British firms have obtained contracts in Kuwait; and what is the estimated value.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I am aware of more than 35 companies which have obtained contracts worth over £140 million in connection with Kuwait reconstruction.

Mr. Dalyell: In relation to reports about torture and human rights, is there a penn'orth of difference between those whom we went to expel from Kuwait and those whom we went to defend? Do not we have to face up to the fact that Kuwait is now paralysed and that there is no chance of those who are there tackling the problem of the


fires? Ourselves, the Americans and the Saudis should go in, take charge and do something about what is a major engineering project which cannot be left to relatively few firefighters in commercial terms.

Mr. Lilley: It is clear that excesses have been committed since liberation and the British Government have made their views on that clear to the Government of Kuwait. If the hon. Gentleman sees no difference between the appalling outrages committed by the Iraqi Government and army and the excesses that have been committed since liberation, he has extraordinarily confused vision.

Mr. Rowe: In my constituency lives the managing director of Reynolds and Wilson, a company which has been placed on the American blacklist. The Americans have told him that they have no evidence of malpractice and that there is no particular reason for the company being on the list, but that they do not intend to remove it. The company, which has traded in that part of the world for 60 years, is having the greatest difficulty winning contracts simply because of the Americans' disgraceful behaviour. Has my right hon. Friend any comfort for that company and others like it?

Mr. Lilley: I assure my hon. Friend that my officials are discussing the matter with the United States authorities and are awaiting further information from them. I can reassure my hon. Friend that so far three firms have been taken off the blacklist and I expect others to be taken off in due course.

Mr. Gordon Brown: What possible help can it be to exporters to Kuwait or anywhere else to proceed with privatising parts of the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Now that there is no serious British bid, will he abandon the sale, which the British Exporters Association says is a shambles and which could put control in Rome or Amsterdam? This could become the second Government Bill to be rejected in another place within days. Frankly, it is privatisation for privatisation's sake.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the European Community export credit facilities are issued by private sector companies in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain and that Denmark and Ireland are also considering privatising their export agencies, because they believe, as we do, that export credit for short-term business should be in the private sector. We believe that that is more in tune with the single market and it is in accord with our view that the private sector should be responsible for such matters. The hon. Gentleman thinks that all European countries are obsessed by dogma, but it is the Labour party alone which believes that this should be in the state sector.

Sir Anthony Grant: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend wishes to help British firms in this context—he is doing a good job—will he bear in mind the interests of our allies who supported us during the Gulf conflict? For example, I have a constituent who works for an Australian company with special expertise in putting out appalling oilfield fires such as those to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be sensible co-operation with such companies?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, I shall do so. I have passed on the information that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to refer to the group competing for contracts in the oilfields. There is every reason to believe that a group of British companies will be awarded the contract for damage assessment in one of the oilfields which is expected to lead to substantial contracts for extinguishing and capping burning wells and restoring oil production. Discussions on that continue with the Kuwait authorities.

Timeshare

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps he is taking to eliminate unscrupulous timeshare sales practices.

Mr. Leigh: I have asked the Commission of the European Communities to prepare a directive to regulate the selling of timeshare properties. In addition, we propose to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to tighten controls on statements about services and to bring timeshare award schemes within the Act's powers.

Mr. Hogg: Is not it a disgrace that it has taken so long to make such little progress with what amounts to a massive abuse by this so-called industry? Is the Minister aware that many thousands of people are receiving so-called prizes such as motor cars? This very day, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has won a "prize" of a motor car. He would tell the House about it himself, but he is a shy and retiring fellow. Will the Minister assure us that his proposals will come into force quickly and that timeshare cowboys will be booted out of British business life?

Mr. Leigh: To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman's impatience. The problem is that about 80 per cent. of timeshare properties are located abroad, so it is pointless for us to act unilaterally. We must persuade the Commission to introduce a cooling-off period and demand that companies provide a written prospectus and protect deposit moneys. I demanded just that when I went to see Commissioner van Miert a couple of weeks ago. I agree that receiving junk mail through the post is one of the curses of modern life, but one can apply to the mailing preference service, which covers 80 per cent. of such mail, to have one's name removed. Indeed, one can apply to have junk mail from Walworth house stopped if one wishes. It promises a place in the socialist sun, with reduced taxes and increased services. The British people should demand not only a written prospectus but protection of deposit moneys.

Mr. Colvin: If my hon. Friend is saying that self-regulation is the best way of proceeding, does he think that the new Timeshare Council is likely to be any better than the Timeshare Development Association that it replaces? Given what he said about 80 per cent. of properties being purchased abroad, does not he think that European legislation would be the answer rather than national legislation?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. We welcome the formation of the Timeshare Council, which I helped to launch last week. Self-regulation has an important part to play, but we have a right to demand that the timeshare industry puts its house in order. There is nothing wrong


with the product, but we receive many complaints—indeed, more complaints than on any other subject—about the selling techniques of timeshare operators. The Government are right to act.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has had a damning report on this industry from the Office of Fair Trading since July last year. Why has he done almost nothing? Why is he still permitting misleading mailshots to this country, from which businesses in this country profit? Why does not he act now to ensure that people who receive the mailshots do not have to go to misleading and high-pressure sales in timeshare offices? Why does not he close offices that do not meet the standards that the public demand?

Mr. Leigh: The Director-General of Fair Trading has power to act under the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, award schemes are not covered by the Trade Descriptions Act. I have said that we intend to amend that Act. Unfortunately, Under-Secretaries cannot introduce legislation within a couple of months. We shall have to await our place in the legislative slot in the next Session or the Session after. The hon. Gentleman failed to say that 80 per cent. of timeshare properties are located abroad, so there is a limit to what we can achieve nationally. We must act with the help of a European directive, and the Commissioner has promised to take up my suggestion that he should introduce one.

Car Industry

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the inward investment in the United Kingdom car industry.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Government warmly welcome inward investment in the car industry.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of three Japanese car manufacturers in this country clearly shows the success of the Government's policy in encouraging foreign investment in Britain?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Japanese are perhaps the most shrewd international investors and the fact that they concentrate so much of their European investment in Britain shows that the Government's tax regime, for companies and individuals, and the framework of industrial relations law that we have created provide an excellent climate for industry, especially for manufacturing industry.

Mr. Hoyle: Despite the inward investment, does the Minister realise that demand for motor cars in this country is low? Indeed, 340 dealers went to the wall last year. Ford has announced 1,000 redundancies and matters will be made worse by the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax. Does the Minister agree that despite the increase in exports, if there is not a strong home demand for cars more redundancies. more short-time working and cuts in investment, training and research and development will follow? That will not augur well for the future of the British motor industry.

Mr. Sainsbury: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would applaud—as I do—the great success of the industry in increasing its exports. The Nissan factory

expects to export about 80 per cent. of its production in the current year and that is having a healthy effect on not only employment but the balance of payments.

Sir Hal Miller: Does the Minister accept that for inward investment in this country to be brought to a successful conclusion, it is essential that the industry's products are freely traded throughout the Community? Can he assure us that that is accepted by the Commission and by the member states?

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree entirely that it is essential that cars produced in the United Kingdom are freely traded throughout the European Community. I assure my hon. Friend that cars produced, for instance, in the Nissan factory to which I referred are as much European cars as are cars produced by a company owned by General Motors or by Ford in any part of Europe.

Tootal Group

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed takeover of the Tootal Group by Coats Viyella to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood):: On the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided not to refer the merger. The House will recall that when a previous proposal was made for a merger between these two companies there was a full inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that that reply will be received with considerable dismay by all Tootal employees, especially those at the Slimmashirt factory in St. Helens? What on earth is the point of his going up and down the country making speeches that cast doubt on the wisdom of hostile takeovers when, in practice, he is not prepared to do anything about them? Bearing in mind the recent Polly Peck fiasco, does he agree that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could have investigated the amount and integrity of Coats' profits which emanate from South American sources about which shareholders clearly know very little?

Mr. Redwood: In its previous inquiry, the MMC considered all the relevant issues, many of which are the same as under the current proposal, which led to the director general's advice. The speeches that I have made about the virtues and wisdom, or otherwise, of contested takeover bids were aimed at shareholders. In this case, no matters of public interest need investigation. There are many matters for shareholders which can properly be dealt with by them. I am sure that the shareholders of both companies will read the record of these exchanges and other matters, including an early-day motion, and that they will be aware of the House's view when they make the important decision about the future of the two companies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Those of us who take a great interest in the textile and clothing industry will have the greatest regard for Coats Viyella, for its role in the industry and for the reputation of Sir David Alliance in seeking to maintain a meaningful and proper place for the textile and clothing industry in the United Kingdom economy. But is not my hon. Friend concerned that a


monopoly will be created? How many other thread manufacturers will remain in the United Kingdom should the merger go ahead? What impact will the merger have on employment, which is critically important to the north-west of England?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments in the first part of his question. The question of sewing thread was addressed fully in the previous report. The advice of the MMC was adopted and the correct action was taken to deal with that potential competition detriment.
The issue of employment was also tackled in the previous report. If I remember rightly, the report said that both companies then thought that there would be some job losses through natural wastage resulting from the rationalisation, but that subsequently there would be more opportunities for new jobs. In the new bid, the two sides take a different view on jobs. The director general does not believe that there is a major matter for investigation in the public interest, but of course the jobs issue should be debated by the shareholders. I presume that the shareholders will want a successful enterprise and that will include winning business, which creates jobs. The only guarantee of a job is to have business which people want to take up and customers to buy the goods.

Mr. Henderson: Before a decision is taken on the matter, will the Minister accept that the textile industry has been particularly badly hit by the recession? Is not he concerned about the fact that hundreds of jobs have been lost, on a weekly basis, in communities that depend heavily on the textile industry such as Colne Valley, Batley and Spen and Keighley in Yorkshire and Pendle and Bolton in Lancashire? Does the Minister believe that those job losses have been caused by high wage settlements or, on reflection, does he believe that interest rates may have had a bigger impact?

Mr. Redwood: The decision to which the question refers has already been taken. My right hon. Friend has announced his decision. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret job losses wherever they occur. I should need to look at each individual case to decide what lay behind those particular job losses. However, a successful textile industry depends on the right goods servicing customers. I must point out the recent examples of inward investment in the textile industry; as with the motor industry, people see that Britain is a good place in which to invest and a good place from which to export.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: While not taking any side in the bid between Tootal and Coats Viyella, my hon. Friend will be aware that the financial strength of the bidder can be bolstered by the use of pension fund surpluses. Many of my colleagues and I are most concerned about that. Surely the primacy in pension fund surpluses must belong to pensioners past, present and future. Will my hon. Friend consider that practice?

Mr. Redwood: The question of gearing was considered by the director general when he reached his decision to advise against a reference. The specific question about pension fund liabilities is governed by other regulations and laws. Regulations prevent the inappropriate use of surpluses and there are rules to ensure that the interests of

pensioners are looked after. After all, that is the whole point of a trust fund. It must ensure that moneys are available to meet future pension liabilities.

Royal Mail

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss reorganisation and possible privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend will be meeting the chairman of the Post Office on Tuesday 11 June.

Mr. Hain: Having created separate Post Office Parcels and Counters companies, and with the current reorganisation of the Royal Mail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—into nine regional businesses—

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in this place. We should show consideration for our new colleagues.

Mr. Hain: —and with the current reorganisation of the Royal Mail into nine separate businesses on a regional basis, together with an additional number of separate business centres, despite the known opposition of a certain person whose name and head appears on stamps, will the Secretary of State agree to consult that certain person before he proceeds with his disastrous programme of privatisation of the Post Office or any sectors of the Royal Mail?

Mr. Leigh: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our exchanges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I was reading that bit.
What is important is not whether the Post Office is in private or public hands, but that the public obtain the quality, choice and value for money that they demand, within the context of a uniform, affordable structure. We have repeated those commitments many times. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are purely operational; they are not a prelude to privatisation.
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Given his career, I would have expected him to be more open-minded. If it is true that certain parts of the Post Office might profit from more competition, and that more value for money might be achieved, what is wrong with that?

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Post Office is not that it is not technologically advanced—it is—but that the trade unions have made poor progress in adjusting to modern conditions and equipment? Does he agree that they really must adjust to modern working practices much more quickly, for the benefit of all of us who use the postal system every day of our lives?

Mr. Leigh: That is exactly why the monopoly is a privilege and not a right. That is why it is always appropriate for the Post Offfice—which is responsible for operational matters—to examine every part of its activity to see whether more choice and value for money, and better quality, are possible. Opposition Members, of course, never accept that. They are the reactionaries, the Bourbons of this debate; we are the Orléanistes, the


pragmatists, ready to consider any kind of proposal from the Post Ofice that is aimed at improving the quality of service for the customer.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Normally, I try to reach question 9 by 3 pm; we have only reached question 6. May we have briefer questions and briefer answers, please?

Steel Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet the chairman and chief executive of British Steel to discuss the future of steel making in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Minister for Industry meet the chairman of British Steel from time to time to discuss matters.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the information given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 6 December by the chairman of British Steel—that the European Commission would oppose any sale of Ravenscraig—was incorrect? is he aware that, on 25 March, the Secretary of State for Scotland was not only given that information by the European Commissioner, but told that Scholey himself knew that he had gone too far in his evidence to the Select Committee? Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Scotland has not given that information to the House of Commons, the Select Committee or I he general public?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Salmond: Now that the key reason given by British Steel for not selling Ravenscraig has been discredited, will the Minister intervene to force such a sale before the assets are destroyed by the private-sector monopoly that he has created?

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is considering his reply to the Select Committee, and will give that reply by 14 May, which is the deadline for it. There are two matters that are specifically for his consideration, and he will deal with them when he produces his full and considered response.
I cannot answer for the chairman of British Steel in regard to the evidence that he gave the Select Committee; that must be taken up with him. If the hon. Gentleman has any questions for the Secretary of State for Scotland, I suggest that Scottish Question Time would be a better opportunity for him than Trade and Industry Questions.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets Bob Scholey, will he tell him that Conservative Members respect the way in which he has so dramatically changed the fortunes of British Steel? He has made it profitable and increased productivity, and the company is now a net exporter of steel. We have no intention of insulting him or the work force, as the Scottish National party has done.
Will my right hon. Friend also tell Bob Scholey that we expect British Steel to honour its commitment to sell the Scottish plants, on the ground that it has no use for them?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to point out that the Scottish National party has upset the trade unions in this case,

which, I am sure, is a matter of concern to the House. He is also right to point out that British Steel's success under its management in the private sector has been phenomenal. It is a world beater—a very profitable and productive company, which has transformed the fortunes of our steel industry in the past few years. I should have thought that most sensible Members of the House would welcome that, and would support the management that had delivered the goods.

Dr. Moonie: rose—

Mr. Douglas: Make way for the well-known steel worker.

Dr. Moonie: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's brain is as large as his body. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question please.

Dr. Moonie: We appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is trying to match the Prime Minister in dithering. As he has now had the Select Committee's report in his hands for some time, can he tell us what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Redwood: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was good at anatomy, but his first remark implies that even that is not his strong subject. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall make a considered reply to the Select Committee within the due time, but I cannot tell him what my right hon. Friend will say, because he has not yet finalised his response. If he had finalised it, it would now be available. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will want a considered and full reply, and that is what my right hon. Friend will produce.

Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend remember and remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he is no longer the owner of British Steel and that British Steel's owners are now the many thousands of people who work in that company, as well as the many thousands of small and, no doubt, larger shareholders around the country? Does he agree that British Steel has been successful because politicans have not interfered in it during the past few years, and will he—as I am sure that he will—resist any temptation to do so in the future?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is right that we need a productive and successful industry to provide the jobs that we all wish to see in the steel sector. It is remarkable how much more successful British Steel has been since politicians stopped issuing lunch-time directives and making direct interventions in its management, and that is how we intend to continue.

CBI (North West)

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the north-west regional CBI to discuss the recession in industry.

Mr. Lilley: I have no present plans to meet representatives of the north-west regional CBI, although my officials do so regularly, and on Monday I met the CBI's presidential committee.

Mr. Bradley: May I suggest that the Secretary of State arranges an urgent meeting with the CBI to discuss the


disastrous fall in manufacturing employment in the north-west? After two Tory-inspired recessions, manufacturing employment has fallen by an appalling 301,000, which is a colossal 31 per cent. When he has that urgent meeting with the CBI, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the CBI that the Government have abandoned their prejudice against manufacturing industry, and will he join the Labour party in giving hope to thousands of unemployed people in the north-west by saying in future that manufacturing industry matters to the regions?

Mr. Lilley: I have recently made a number of visits to the north-west, where I visited businesses in Bolton, Bury, Clitheroe, Ellesmere Port, Liverpool, Manchester, Skelmersdale and Warrington. I was impressed by the progress that has been made in diversification and modernisation over the past decade. Most impressive of all was the Ellesmere Port Vauxhall works, which started exporting cars for the first time for 11 years last September and which now exports 40 per cent. of its output and takes on a new foreign market every fortnight.

Mr. Lee: The principal constituency employer of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), is the health service, but no less than 55 per cent. of employment in Pendle is in manufacturing. Although trading conditions are not easy at present, may I advise my right hon. Friend that the vast majority of manufacturing employers are keeping their nerve and fully support the Government's policy of steadily bringing down interest rates and inflation?

Mr. Lilley: I am glad to hear that from my hon. Friend. When I was in the region, I was impressed by the fact that the number of firms trading in the area has increased over the past decade by nearly one fifth, and that the number of manufacturing firms has increased by one quarter. That is very good, and shows a strength and ability to resist the downturn and to diversify away from traditional industries.

Post Office Services (Rural Areas)

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the provision of Post Office services in rural areas.

Mr. Leigh: The Government remain committed to Post Office services which meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom, including both urban and rural areas.

Mr. Wallace: I wonder whether the Minister realises that, if he were so minded, he could send a 1 kg package to Iceland or a 0·5 kg package to Tibet by international datapost more cheaply than he could send the equivalent packages by datapost to Orkney or Shetland. Does he accept that the revenue received by the Post Office as a result of the 75 per cent. surcharge on datapost to the Scottish islands is small compared with the adverse effect that it has on businesses in the islands? Just as the Government have accepted that social and political considerations outweigh commercial considerations in sustaining some forms of rural post office network, will they consider the case for taking into account similar social and political considerations with regard to datapost charges?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect. We attach enormous importance to maintaining a uniform tariff structure for normal letter delivery to rural areas. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to datapost, which operates in a competitive and commercial market because it is above the 1 lb limit. First, it would not be right for me to comment on operational matters, which have always been the responsibility of the Post Office. Secondly, if through me the hon. Gentleman asked the Post Office to subsidise the service, he would ask it to do so at the expense of its competitors. I am not sure that that would be entirely right.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the rural communities in North Yorkshire that the availability of a strong network of village post office counters will remain a key feature of the Government plans for the Post Office, as will universal delivery at a common price of the royal mail throughout the United Kingdom? The excellent service provided by rural village post offices is greatly valued by my constituents, and we ought to do what we can to keep it.

Mr. Leigh: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I live in a rural area myself and I find the service provided absolutely excellent. My post and, indeed, my red boxes are delivered on time.

Manufacturing (West Midlands)

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist manufacturing output in the west midlands.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman asks about the policies of the Department of Trade and Industry. They were recently set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the question of helping manufacturing industry. [Interruption.] I thought that we were on Question 11.

Mr. Speaker: Correct. Is the Minister not answering Question 11?

Mr. Redwood: I am answering Question 11.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the policies for supporting and helping manufacturing industry. The west midlands is a region which did extremely well in the 1980s, reaching record levels of output, investment and productivity. Our policies of promoting inward investment and assisting business and our budget for business will facilitate that progress in the 1990s.

Mr. Corbett: That confusing reply will send shivers down the spine of most manufacturers in Birmingham and the west midlands. Does not the Minister know or care that manufacturing investment is set to fall by 17 per cent. this year and that, since 1980, 370,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in the west midlands have gone? Does he not realise that, in this second recession, the car industry in particular in the west midlands is being crippled? When will he start doing something to assist the manufacturing sector, on which we rely for our economic success?

Mr. Redwood: That was a confusing question. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise the great achievements of the 1980s or the fact that investment


reached record levels by the end of that decade. The adjustment downwards in investment still leaves it well above the level of the 1970s, when the Labour party had a chance to do something for manufacturing industry but let it down so badly. All the Government's economic policies are geared to creating the conditions in which enterprise can flourish. Healthy industry depends on competitive markets, low taxation, the attraction of inward investment and the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday, which clearly showed all that the Government are doing through the DTI to assist manufacturing industry. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts and see that many overseas countries and companies are now investing here, because they know that the climate is good for manufacturing investment.

Mr. Sayeed: When my hon. Friend has met manufacturers in the west midlands and elsewhere, has he found that they understand that, during the past decade under a Conservative Government, manufacturing investment and output increased by 20 per cent., manufacturing productivity by 60 per cent. and manufacturing profitability by 250 per cent?

Mr. Redwood: What my hon. Friend says about the success of the nation as a whole is right. If Opposition Members claim to speak for the west midlands, they should start to recognise how much success there was in that region in the 1980s, and how that success will continue in the 1990s if we stick to the right policies for manufacturing industry. The fact that so many firms are investing in the area—only the other day Brose announced a major investment in car-related supplies—shows that international investors know something that the Labour party does not know: that Britain is getting it right and will be a major manufacturing centre in the 1990s.

Manufacturers (Trade Balance)

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the trade balance in manufactured goods in (a) Germany and (b) Britain in 1990.

Mr. Sainsbury: The United Kingdom had a deficit of £13·7 billion. Germany had a surplus of £60·2 billion.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister admit that these figures emphasise the true state of the British economy? Does he realise that our trade in manufactured goods shows a performance worse than that of any other industrialised country, with the exception of the United States, since 1979? In the face of declining investment, a fall in output, and major problems for British exporters, when will this "do nothing" Department of Trade and Industry do something?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry to find the hon. Gentleman joining those of his colleagues who spend their time denigrating the performance of British manufacturing industry. Manufacturing output, manufacturing productivity and manufacturing investment last year were at record levels. Let us look a t British manufacturing exports to Germany against British manufacturing imports from that country. Interestingly, the ratio, at 59 per cent., was higher last year than in any year between 1975 and 1979.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not right that, in 1990, Britain's share of world trade in manufactures increased, for the second year running, after being more or less stable throughout the 1980s and having fallen catastrophically during the previous three decades? Is that not a remarkable sign of a real turnround in the performance and competitiveness of this country's industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the significance of the fact that our manufacturing exports reached a plateau—did not fall, but reached a plateau—in the 1980s after decades of decline. That is a tribute to the increase in productivity to which I have referred—an increase that is essential if our manufacturing industry is to continue to prosper in the 1990s.

Ms. Quin: Will the Minister now admit that the prospects for an improved trade balance are not helped by the fact that his proposed sell-off of the Export Credits Guarantee Department has turned out to be a complete fiasco? Can he tell us why there is no British bidder left for the ECGD? Will he confirm that the Government's lack of commitment to export credits for not-so-easy markets, and in the long term, has caused both bidders and exporters to react with alarm and dismay?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Lady refuses to recognise that the Confederation of British Industry, among others, has welcomed the proposed privatisation of the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I am sure that the CBI has given this welcome because it realises that a privatised insurance services group will be able to provide a better, more flexible and more responsive service to its customers—British industry.

Mr. Charles Wardle: If the United Kingdom's trade balance in manufactured goods is to compare favourably with Germany's, will it not be necessary, first, for this country to equal Germany's performance in respect of inflation and competitiveness? Is not that precisely what the Government's anti-inflationary policies are designed to achieve?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point. One of the major factors in the success of German industry since the war is the relatively stable inflationary environment in which it has operated. If we were to return to the policies that are always advocated by the Labour party, we should have again the inflation levels—more than 15 per cent., on average—that characterised that party's last period in government.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss the future of British Industry.

Mr. Lilley: My Department has frequent contacts with National Economic Development Organisation officials on a wide range of business matters. I will be chairing the council meeting on 20 May 1991, and I also expect to meet the director general a few days before then.

Mr. Dunnachie: Is the Minister aware that, in the last six months, 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost as


a result of the policies pursued by his Government, and that since 1979 about 2·2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, again as a result of the policies of his Government? Has he read a recent press report that indicates the depths of the recession that this country is in? When will the Government take the action that is urgently necessary to bring Britain in from the cold, away from recession, and back to a level economy?

Mr. Lilley: Manufacturing output fell under the Labour Government, and it has increased under this Administration. Manufacturing exports are 60 per cent. up in volume terms and our share of world trade has been maintained over the past 10 years, a period in which France, Germany, the United States and Japan have all lost some share of world trade to the newly industrialised countries of the far east.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, last year, manufacturing investment and exports reached an all-time record high, and that a survey undertaken by the West Midlands chamber of commerce showed that no fewer than seven out of 10 firms intend either to maintain or increase investment in training next year? Will he reiterate that it is part of the hypocrisy of the Labour party's attitude towards manufacturing industry that, when it was last in power, manufacturing output fell and profitability sank to an all-time 20-year low?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The latest CBI survey shows the welcome fact that industry expects to maintain spending on research and innovation and to increase spending on training during the recession. These are things that never happened under the Labour Government.

Economy

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he will make when he next meets the CBI to its recent report on the state of the economy.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Douglas: No. 14, and in Scotland we measure people from the neck up.

Mr. Lilley: I welcome the CBI's business agenda for the 1990s, "Competing in the New Europe". The CBI is right to set winning the battle against inflation at the top of its agenda.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister will be aware that the CBI is extremely concerned about the fall in the level of investment. That being so, why are the Government allowing the European Commissioner, Bruce Milian, to withhold £100 million which is due to coalfield areas, including my constituency, which have been deprived of funds? How does the Secretary of State hope to change the Commissioner's mind and ensure that the £10 million that is due to the east of Scotland goes to that area, that the matter is settled and that there is a satisfactory interface between the Department and the Treasury? When will he ensure that the coalfield areas get their dues?

Mr. Lilley: I had a useful meeting recently with Commissioner Millan to discuss this issue. Many

misunderstandings were clarified. I hope that, before long, the money will be released. I am glad to have the powerful support of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the CBI the new uncertainty that is facing industry as a result of United Kingdom laws being suspended or amended because of appeals that these laws conflict with Euro-laws on everything from lotteries to Sunday trading? As the guardian of industry and commerce, will my right hon. Friend take steps today to advise shopkeepers and the owners of supermarkets on whether they are entitled in the Government's views to open their premises on Sundays? Will he take steps also to advise local authorities whether it is the Government's view that they have powers to implement the Sunday trading legislation that has been approved by Parliament?

Mr. Lilley: I understand that yesterday's decision related only to whether local authorities should give undertakings to the court when seeking injunctions to prohibit Sunday trading. If that is right, the decision would not appear to cast doubt upon Mr. Justice Hoffmann's decision last year that the Shops Act 1950 was not incompatible with the treaty of Rome. The decision represents no change in the underlying law.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI will he tell its representatives that they are right to be gloomy about the state of the economy, given that all the factors that produced the Lawson revival in the 1980s from the credit bubble to the effect of oil on the balance of payments and the devaluation of 1986—were one-offs that cannot recur? Will he tell them also that the future of the economy under this Government is permafrost unless we get a competitive exchange rate and low interest rates? The Government cannot expand the economy without regenerating inflation and widening the balance of payments gap. That will be the position until we have a change of Government.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's views are certainly not those of the CBI. I advise him and other Opposition Members to read the CBI's "Business Agenda for the 1990s", which says:
It will certainly be important that the United Kingdom does not retrace the steps that have been taken to advantage over the past decade.
One of the aims of the CBI has been
to remind the 25 per cent. of the Electorate at the next General Election who were under 18 in 1974 how much has been achieved in the last decade. For it is all too easy to forget what the situation was like in the late 1970s, industrial disputes, apparently regarded as inevitable".
The CBI does not want to return to that, but the Labour party's new proposals commit us to doing so.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Following his welcome attempt yesterday to redefine the role of his Department, will the Secretary of State say in more detail what he meant by "encouragement to innovation"? In so far as that might have to follow the increase in Government-sponsored research and development, will he tell the House whether the appropriate funds are available for that purpose?

Mr. Lilley: Commercial research and development undertaken by companies is best encouraged by a competitive environment. We shall encourage that. However, research and investment at a pure, pre-competitive level need and receive Government support.


We spend some £3 billion on civil research and development. That is more than the Japanese Government spend proportionately for the size of our economy. We are introducing encouragements for industry to exploit the potential that that gives, to encourage small and medium firms to get more involved in research and development, particularly with the science base in universities, and to change the climate in the City and industry to encourage innovation.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the central question and face the consequences of the recession in terms of lost jobs and lost capacity, when 10,000 jobs are going every week and 2,500 companies are going bankrupt every month? Does he agree with the central finding of the CBI survey that was issued yesterday? Unless something is done, 50 per cent. of companies expect to cut investment in the next four months and 45 per cent. of companies—nearly one half—expect to lay off workers. How many more months of redundancies and closures will it take before the "do nothing" Department of Trade and Industry begins to act, or has the Conservative party become, as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, the party of recession and unemployment?

Mr. Lilley: The key finding in the CBI's report was that the balance of companies expecting further decline was down sharply, from 51 to 17 per cent. As for investment spending, the key fact is that industry is maintaining spending on innovation and new products and processes and increasing it on training. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. My speech looked forward to the future in the 1990s, building on the success of the 1980s. The hon. Gentleman wants to take us back to the 1960s and 1970s. The trouble is that Opposition Front-Bench Members all belong to the "Let's turn back" group.

Single European Market

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress on the creation of the single European market.

Mr. Sainsbury: Good progress has been made towards the creation of the single market. Of the 282 measures set out in the 1985 Commission White Paper, "Completing the Internal Market", 197 measures have now been agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Viggers: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party, which originally took this country into the European Economic Community, to its great benefit, and despite the sullen and unhelpful attitude of the Labour party of the time—and some peripheral sniping—is now on target to complete requisite legislation for the single European market by December 1992?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to do so. The Government have consistently been in the lead in implementing directives in domestic law. Occasionally—perhaps even at this moment—the Danes have been slightly ahead of us, but we have an excellent record and are well on target to creating the single market. which will be of great benefit to British industry.

Trade Indemnity

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of Trade Indemnity to discuss the number of business bankruptcies.

Mr. Sainsbury: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has any plans to hold such a meeting.

Mr. Ross: Has the Minister read the recent Trade Indemnity report, which showed that business failures rose by 90 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990 and predicted that those figures will remain the same through much of next year? Is he aware that 24,442 firms failed in 1990? How does he propose to deal with that catastrophic failure in businesses?

Mr. Sainsbury: I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the figures from Trade Indemnity are not comprehensive, as they relate only to the businesses where Trade Indemnity has a liability. I also draw his attention to the fact that, although insolvencies are always a matter of regret, the percentage of the total stock of businesses that encountered insolvency in 1990 was in no way out of line with the experience of the 1980s. A dynamic economy will always feature a high turnover of firms.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there has been a record number of new company start-ups over a long time, there is bound, in a recession, to be a record number of bankruptcies? What matters is that British industry is able to compete effectively in the increasingly competitive environment that will exist in Europe post-1992 and to sell its goods on quality, not just on price.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In 1990 there were one third more businesses and, therefore, in a dynamic economy, there will inevitably be more bankruptcies. What is necessary for success is a high degree of productivity and innovation. That is what the Government's policies are encouraging.

Imports

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce import penetration.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Department's policies aim to foster the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. McKelvey: All to our loss in Kilmarnock. Is the Minister not aware that, since 1979, there has been a massive one third increase in import penetration? The import penetration on office equipment and processing data is colossal at 95 per cent. The import penetration on machine tools is huge at 52 per cent. and that for clothing, textiles and footware is 40 per cent. The Minister must tell me what to tell my constituents of Kilmarnock. How can they have some hope for the future when their economy is based on industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to note that the latest figures show export volume up 3 per cent. and import volume down 2 per cent. on the equivalent quarter last year.

War Crimes Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have received numerous inquiries about the future of the War Crimes Bill and it might be helpful if I reminded the House of the provisions of the Parliament Acts.
The rejection of the War Crimes Bill for a second time by another place brings into play the provisions of the Act. The House of Lords will be asked to return the Bill to this House where it will be prepared for Royal Assent. No further proceedings are required in this House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker, the whole House will be grateful to you for clarifying the position under the Parliament Acts. In particular, your statement has made it clear that the procedures now being followed come into play automatically following the defeat of the Bill last night in another place.
The Parliament Act 1911 makes it clear that only if the House were to direct to the contrary would the Bill not be submitted for Royal Assent. It will be for the convenience of the House if I make clear now on behalf of the Government that we see no need for time to be made available for the House to consider this matter yet again. The House has repeatedly made clear its support for the War Crimes Bill, on free votes, and by very large majorities. The most recent occasion was on the Second Reading of the Bill this Session on Monday 18 March. There is, therefore, no case for putting the matter to the House again.

Dr. John Cunningham: When we debated the possibilities of following this procedure in the Chamber a few weeks ago I made it clear, on behalf of the Opposition, that we thought that the most important principle at stake was the supremacy of the elected Chamber of the House of Commons. My party has consistently supported that principle since the Parliament Acts were introduced and we have no hesitation in saying today—I do so on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and my hon. Friends—that we think it is proper now for that procedure to be followed without further delay.
Although I personally did not support the War Crimes Bill, the reality is that this House, by substantial majorities on two occasions, passed it. It cannot be acceptable for a non-elected, unrepresentative Upper House to frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons. That would be totally unacceptable to us. I make that absolutely clear in supporting the decision that you, Mr. Speaker, have taken. You have the support, as does the view expressed by the Leader of the House, of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that hon. Members wish to raise different matters. The War Crimes Bill is not a matter for me.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it may be worth drawing the attention of the House, before Mr. Speaker signs the certificate which would be the next stage in this procedure, to the fact that 80 years ago, in the preamble to the

Parliament Bill as it then was, it was said that it would be expedient to do this because it was intended to switch the basis of the House of Lords from a hereditary to a popular basis. As it has taken 80 years to do that, would it not be sensible to have not quite so long a delay before a certificate is used—for the first time in 50 years—and what would be lost by allowing the House a second opportunity to decide whether or not that certificate should be used?

Mr. Speaker: These are matters for the Government. They have made their position quite clear in what the Leader of the House has said.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not in fact a matter for the Government; it is a matter for you. Therefore, in the interests of the whole House, an opportunity ought to be given to this House to pause and consider whether we really want to implement this legislation and the mechanism which has been installed, which was intended for issues of great constitutional importance—not for the narrow and rather unworthy purpose of facilitating the prosecution of a few old men—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be, but the position is quite clear. I am bound by the Act. I have no discretion in this matter, unless the House directs otherwise.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was there not a 12-month interval between the times that we debated this Bill? Is it not a fact that on those two occasions and before—on the principle of the Bill—there were substantial majorities in favour of proceeding? What would be the purpose if the views of the elected Chamber did not prevail and if the views of the unelected Chamber did prevail on this point? It is not just the merits of the case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Matters of this nature are relevant to a debate. They are not relevant to points of order. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Michael Grylls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly not a lawyer and I know very little about the law. However, I pay great attention when lawyers of great distinction in the other place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may well take account of that, but it is not a matter for me on a point of order. The Government have made their position clear.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your statement reasserts the supremacy of this place over a wholly unelected Chamber. Can there be any delay in the necessary documentation coming from another place to this House?

Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that we send a message to the other House asking for the Bill to come back.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago you said that you were powerless to act—I think that I quote you accurately—"unless the House directs otherwise." Would you please advise us as to what procedures are open to us to enable the House to act otherwise? May I, through you, remind


my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that many of us on these Benches are thoroughly ashamed that a Conservative Government are doing what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. Yes; certainly if the Government were to table a motion and to find time for it, that would be an opportunity for the House to give its decision. If the hon. Gentleman were to table a motion and the Government were to find time for it, that would also be an opportunity for the House to decide.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made a statement about what the House could do in the circumstances that prevail today. As we all know, there is a possibility that the House of Lords will reject what you have said and that it will take further action. I think that it is high time that the House and you, Mr. Speaker, considered that the next step should be to abolish the House of Lords. There is a general election in the offing. What is the point of having a general election for 650 Members of Parliament if the people down the road, 1,100 of them who are there for life, with not one elected by anybody outside the place, can tell the elected House of Commons what to do? Let us get rid of them.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of view.

Mr. MacGregor: You have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures under the Parliament Acts are automatic. The Government, both through myself and the Home Secretary, made it clear in the procedure debate and on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill in March of this year that, if a dispute remained between the two Houses, we would expect, as the Parliament Acts do, to ensure that the views of the elected Chamber ultimately prevailed over those of the other House.
The position is straightforward. That is the stage that we have reached under the Parliament Acts and you, Mr. Speaker, have made clear the action that you must take. As for the Government, it is clear that the House expressed its view on a number of occasions by very large majorities, on a free vote. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene now to frustrate the wishes of this House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can pursue the matter any further.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Archy Kirkwood
Mr. Graham Riddick
Mr. Doug Hoyle

National Enterprise (Reconstruction) Board

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a National Enterprise (Reconstruction) Board to identify and evaluate possibilities for commercial investment by Her Majesty's Government.
Contrary to some assertions that I have heard in the House, the Bill is a serious measure. It has caused a certain amount of consternation among some of my hon. Friends, but I can assure them that that is as nothing compared to the shock which preparing the Bill had had on me. However, it is an important measure with which we need to persevere if we are to avoid the errors of the past. I well remember those distant, dark days of the 1970s when my late hon. Friend, the former illustrious Member for Eastbourne, regularly introduced Bills seeking to denationalise one industry after another. It was an hors d'oeuvre, offering the public a taste of the menu that they would enjoy after the 1979 general election. Greatly to the credit of Mr. Ian Gow, many of those industries have transferred from ownership by politicians to ownership by the public.
Curiously, the Labour party does not appear to share the same confidence in its own proposals as Mr. Gow placed in his. That lack of confidence seems to be the reason why the Labour party is coy about presenting such legislative proposals in the House, preferring press conferences to Parliament. Therefore, I thought that in the new spirit of cross-party pairing, it might be helpful if I introduced the Bill to spare the Opposition from repeating the mistakes that they made in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s.
In its policy document, the Labour party spoke of
an effective partnership between industry and Government
which, we are told, exists in those nice countries—Germany, Italy and Japan. The good news is that out goes the command economy which brought us the National Enterprise Board and in comes the spanking new turbo-charged national technology organisation to be called British Technology Enterprise. My hon. Friends may mistakenly believe that enterprise has the same relevance to British technology as democratic has to the German Democratic Republic.
Although no one has yet mentioned it at my surgery, we are told by the Labour party that the public interest requires such an organisation which would
take a longer term view to develop British innovations … and to invest in the high technologies of the future.
There would also be a national investment bank—an NIB—which would provide long-term funding to small and medium-sized companies and help
to mobilise private capital for publicity led projects in the country's infrastructure".
The NIB would
be run on strictly commercial lines and operate at arm's length from Government".
There are some potential pitfalls which my Bill would help to avoid. First, the strategy would require planning. Politicians are not good at that as we know from the problem that George Brown faced when he introduced his great national plan in 1964. It ran out of print within two hours of publication.
Secondly, in the business of investing in the high technologies of the future, we would have to avoid being hoodwinked by American entrepreneurs making cars with gull-wing doors, which I think gave rise to the expression to be gulled or taken for a ride. Although it produced only 500 cars, the De Lorean motor company managed to siphon off £77 million of our money. It is true that at £150,000 a copy, it was a record breaker. It was the fastest motor car from the production line to the motor museum.
As I said a moment ago, the NIB would be run on strictly commercial lines. There is a risk that that commitment could be confused with the statement in 1977 that "the NEB"—that is the National Enterprise Board and should not be confused with the NIB—
must base its investment policy on sound commercial criteria.
Unfortunately, De Lorean was but one of a number of sound commercial investments. In addition to Rolls-Royce and British Leyland, by 1979 there were 67 Government shareholdings in companies costing £155 million. Another was British Underwater Engineering, which proved to be an aquatic leap in the dark. As my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is now the much-respected Minister for Corporate Affairs, reported in an excellent pamphlet, in 1978 the consequence of applying those sound commercial criteria was that the NEB made a loss of £40 million after extraordinary items. Presumably the extraordinary items were the ones that made money.
By the time the unfortunate episode was concluded NEXOS office systems had been sold at a loss of £34 million in 1982 and in 1984 INMOS had been sold for £95 million but its new owners reported losses aggregating £62 million between 1984 and 1988. Of course, British Leyland had been the beneficiary of an investment of £2,500 million.
I had originally thought of another title for my Bill. It came to me as I was attending a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. I noticed on the wall of his office a painting of a horse race meeting—obviously it was a relic of the days when the NEB was in charge of the DTI. It seemed to me that a better title for my Bill might be the Industrial Totalisator Board Bill. After all, if one puts one's money blind on the tote at least there is a chance of backing a dead cert, but if one put one's money in the NEB it would have been a certain dud.
The De Lorean experience contains a number of lessons we might usefully learn. As the Public Accounts Committee established, the business ability of the Government team was woefully lacking and the nominee directors appointed by the Government were shown to be completely ineffectual, offering little or no protection to public funds.
In the Bill, we would have to consider the competence of those responsible for the policy of picking industrial

winners. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) may be one of the best qualified as he is a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. Regrettably, the Opposition Front Bench industry team seems to have ruled itself out because of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry described as its industrial virginity,
unsullied by any experience of industrial management"—[Official Report, 25 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 621.]
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has shadow responsibility for the brewing industry, but one wonders whether he is qualified to organise a drinks party in a brewery.
In all seriousness, if the new commercial Labour party's policy of picking industrial winners is to succeed, it is important that social engineering is left out. There are some alarming examples which illustrate some of the thinking within the Labour party. I use the word "thinking" loosely. For example, Walsall metropolitan borough council has an economic development strategy designed to
improve the economic welfare of borough residents, particularly those who are disadvantaged for reasons of gender, race, disability or other form of economic, or social, circumstance.
The trouble with the Labour party is that, whenever it gets hold of public money, it cannot resist some positive discrimination—what is known in public bars as the one-legged black lesbian syndrome.
We should not be deterred by the dramatic contrast between the performance of industry when it was in the hands of politicians and needed Government subsidies of £19 million and today when those same companies have been net contributors of £1,500 million in corporation tax to the Treasury. Nor should we be put off by the fact that many countries have beaten a path to Britain's door for advice on privatisation. I am sure that most of the 11 million shareholders would readily hand over their shares in exchange for Labour party junk bonds.
The House will agree that the best way to enable us—and the public—to examine Labour's so-called industrial strategy would be to give me leave to introduce the Bill. In Committee, we might even establish the hidden agenda behind Labour Members' support for London zoo. They hope that it will be a safe haven for their industrial lame ducks and white elephants.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Howarth, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mr. John Carlisle, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. John Watts, Mr. Roger King, Mr. Terry Dicks and Mr. Michael Brown.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE (RECONSTRUCTION) BOARD

Mr. Gerald Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to establish a National Enterprise (Reconstruction) Board to identify and evaluate possibilities for commercial investment by Her Majesty's Government: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Broadcasting

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c., in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 11).
The purpose of this debate is not to confirm the principle of permanent televising of our proceedings—that issue was settled by the House last July—but to consider, and I hope approve, the recommendations put forward in the report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting as to how parliamentary broadcasting should be organised and financed on a long-term basis.
The House will he aware that the arrangements originally put in place for the experiment have been extended for a transitional period lasting until 31 July this year. It is necessary to move ahead now, if Parliament approves, so that the appropriate arrangements can be in place by that deadline date.
The report that we are considering builds on and takes forward the work of the Committee under my two predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and, latterly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), to whom I wish to pay tribute this afternoon. As a comparatively new member of the Committee, I should like to congratulate and thank all the previous and serving members of the Committee. Much constructive work has been done and much thought given to bring us to this point.
I should also like to echo a theme that is dear to the heart of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East—the close collaboration and co-operation between the House and broadcasters, without which neither the successful conduct of the experiment nor the agreed package of proposals for the future would have been possible.
It might assist the House if I gave the criteria by which we were guided in reaching our conclusions. They were: the overriding importance of proper parliamentary control; the desirability of ensuring an efficient, cost-effective and well-managed televising operation., and the need for a fair distribution of costs.
The House quite rightly attaches much importance to the issue of parliamentary control. Let me reassure the House that firm parliamentary control over the broadcasting of our proceedings will remain. The Select Committee on Broadcasting will continue, but after some years its functions may be absorbed into the new "domestic" Committee structure recommended in the recent report to the House of Commons Commission by Sir Robin Ibbs. That will not alter its objectives, its powers or its effectiveness. The Select Committee will provide, as it does now, a vehicle for the general parliamentary oversight of the televising operation, a channel for any representations from Members or broadcasters, and a forum for the taking of any Executive decisions which may be needed.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is right to say that accountability for televising the House and its Committees remains firmly under the control of the House. However, does he take into account the fact that, when the television authorities wish to televise a particular Committee, it deprives other Committees of the use of the larger Rooms? To that extent, the affairs of the House are inconvenienced, and that should be considered in the review.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the House agrees that the televising of Select Committees and Standing Committees is important. A wider audience should be able to see the important work of the House. That will sometimes create the practical difficulties that my hon. Friend described. The arrangements that we are trying to put in place for the televising of Committee proceedings will, I hope, ease some of the practical problems that have been experienced.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but my point is relevant to that made by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). I voted consistently for the House to be televised. I support the televising of Standing Committees and Select Committees. However, I do not understand why—the right hon. Gentleman may not want to comment on this now, but he could write to me if necessary—this morning I was not allowed to take a photograph in a Committee Room, where only I and another person were present. However, as I walked down the Committee Corridor I saw two television cameras in another Committee Room. It is a ridiculous anomaly that television cameras can operate with a host of people, officials and hon. Members present, but neither I nor a professional photographer nor anyone else can take a photograph in a Committee Room.
I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that silly anomaly. It seems crazy to people outside that photographs cannot be taken when probably billions of people watch pictures produced by the television cameras day in, day out.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's point could be considered again through the appropriate channels, but I am sure that he will agree that it is not a matter for the Select Committee on Broadcasting. I take note of what he said; it can perhaps be reconsidered by the appropriate means.
Perhaps I can finish the point about parliamentary control. The Supervisor of Broadcasting, who is directly answerable to the Select Committee, will also carry on with his important co-ordinating and managerial responsibilities which, under the permanent arrangements, will also encompass the other place. The most significant task for the supervisor is, of course, to ensure proper parliamentary control over the form of the signals through the operator's compliance with the rules of coverage. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have found the services provided by the supervisor reassuring, and I am sure that the House will join me in complimenting him and his office on their work on parliamentary control.
Lastly, Parliament's interests will be fully protected by the presence on the board of the proposed new company to be established with the broadcasters of an equal number of directors representing each House, and a chairman


appointed by you, Mr. Speaker. I shall have more to say about that subject later in my speech, as it is an important aspect of parliamentary control.
I shall now deal with the case for an integrated operation. Our first decision, reached unanimously, was that an integrated operation incorporating coverage of the Chambers and Committees of both Houses under a single management would offer significant economies of scale. Fortunately, the Select Committee on Broadcasting in another place took the same view, so we were able to proceed to consider the other aspects of the permanent arrangements on a jointly agreed basis; so there was absolute agreement not only in this House, but in another place.
The Committee next considered the important question of who should produce the pictures. We examined carefully the arguments in favour of establishing for this purpose a broadcasting unit as a Department of the House. Members who favour that option will no doubt wish to advance the arguments that they put in the Committee, which are covered in paragraphs 12 to 22 of the report. A majority of the Committee—a narrow one, but a majority nonetheless—took a different view, and one that I firmly share.
Let me briefly give the reasons. First, we believe that the parliamentary control that is needed can be provided through the existing machinery—which I have just described—involving the Select Committee and the Supervisor of Broadcasting, a system which everyone agrees has worked very successfully so far. The parliamentary control aspect of this issue is not in question under either arrangement—that favoured by the majority of the Committee or the alternative arrangement.
The main arguments against an "in-House" unit are those of cost and efficiency. The record of the independent operator who has been responsible for producing the pictures so far clearly shows—I quote our report—
the management of a fixed price contracted out operation would be leaner and more cost-effective than could be obtained by establishing a Department of the House, especially given the lack of experience within the House of running a complex broadcasting operation of this sort.
Moreover, the irregular pattern of the House's sittings and the recesses of differing lengths place a high premium on the redeployment of broadcasting staff to other tasks when the House is not meeting. The report argues:
It is doubtful whether a Department of the House, operating under public service employment practice, would be in a position to exploit as flexibly these opportunities for maximising the productive utilisation of staff.
Those powerful arguments, based on the lessons of more than 18 months of televising, persuaded the Committee to move away from its earlier support in principle for an in-House unit and to recommend instead that the operator should be an independent company chosen by public tender. Experience has shown that it works well, that it is the most cost-effective method and that it is more appropriate in terms of operating efficiency for a service such as we are considering.
I believe that the approach recommended by the Select Committee is infinitely preferable to one that would involve the employment by the House itself of all the broadcasting staff, with all the bureaucratic and

establishment complications that would inevitably arise as a result of the House's lack of familiarity with this type of technically complex undertaking.
The third element in the permanent televising arrangements is the distribution of costs. So far, those have been shared between the broadcasters, who have paid for the equipment and running costs, the Parliamentary Works Office, which has been responsible for changes to the fabric of the building, and the House itself, which has funded the staffing of the Select Committee and the office of the Supervisor of Broadcasting.
In our report, we quoted figures which show that the burden of the expenditure during the experiment fell roughly equally on the broadcasters on the one hand and on the public purse on the other. With regard to recurrent costs, that broad pattern is expected to continue—if anything, with the broadcasters shouldering a somewhat larger load. However, the overall balance will be skewed during the current financial year and the next by the need for significant capital expenditure notably on the fitting out of Committee Rooms for coverage by remotely operated cameras, a new lighting system in the Chamber, modernisation of the sound system and a new control room, about which I will say more later.
Those costs will be met—reasonably enough, as they involve alterations to the Palace of Westminster—from public funds. Details of the projected costs of parliamentary broadcasting over the next two to three years are contained in appendix 9 published with the Select Committee's report.
I have referred to the expenditure side of the balance sheet and perhaps I can very briefly mention the income side. Receipts from sales of the signal accrue, both under the current system and the proposed permanent arrangements, to those broadcasting organisations that are members of the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—shortly to become the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd., or PARBUL—if the House approves the Committee's report.
The most recent accounts of HOCBUL indicate that receipts from the sale of the signal between July 1989 and September 1990 came to some £288,000. Those moneys go, under the arrangements previously agreed by the House, towards defraying the cost of producing the signal. That will continue to be the case under the permanent arrangements, although the Select Committee will keep a careful watch over the size of the receipts to ensure that the interests of the House are properly protected.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: As financial probity is one of the things to which the right hon. Gentleman keeps referring, will he confirm that under his proposals no receipts from the signal will come back to the House?

Mr. MacGregor: That is the position that exists at the moment and that is what is proposed for the new arrangements. If we consider the costs in detail, it is clear that the broadcasters will be meeting more costs—indirect costs—further down the line, amounting to several millions of pounds, in the arrangements for the future televising. Indeed, they meet such costs now. The report does not purely show direct costs. As it makes clear, the broadcasters will have to meet significant further sums. In view of that, it has been agreed that those sums will come back to the broadcasting organisations.
However, I have just said that the Select Commit tee will be able to keep a careful watch over the size of the receipts. Clearly, if they grow substantially—growth would have to be very substantial it will be possible to consider the arrangements again. That would be a matter for the Select Committee. The present arrangements are right for the period ahead.
To sum up, our recommendations regarding the arrangements for permanent televising are as follows: that televising should be conducted and managed as a single integrated operation, incorporating coverage of the Chambers of both Houses and their Committees; that responsibility for producing the signals should be assigned to an outside operator, chosen by public tender; that the costs associated with producing the signals should continue to be shared between the broadcasters and the taxpayer according to broadly the same criteria as have applied to the experiment and the current transitional session.
We make no apology for the fact that, except for coverage of the other place, those are, in essence, the same arrangements as exist now. If I may quote our report:
None of the evidence we have received suggests that there would be anything to be gained by abandoning them for the sake of some other untried formula.
The details of the permanent arrangements are set out in the report and I will not therefore repeat them in full. Suffice to say that a new company will be formed to succeed House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd., which, in recognition of its wider responsibilities in relation to both Houses, will be known as Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd., or PARBUL for short. The structure of PARBUL will closely follow that of HOCBUL, with the costs of the equipment and of the operator's contract being allocated on the basis of shareholdings taken by the participating broadcasting organisations, and with revenues from the sale a the signals distributed according to the same formula. The broadcasters will appoint seven directors to the board, as will Parliament—three from this House, three from another place, plus the Supervisor of Broadcasting ex officio. The Chairman will be appointed by you, Mr. Speaker.
As for the type of coverage, no changes are proposed in the Chamber of the Commons. Committee coverage will continue to be demand-led. The cost of televising every Committee meeting in public would be prohibitive. There will, however, be an important development in the technical arrangements for Committee coverage. From the autumn, it is hoped, subject to successful technical trials, that one unit of three remotely operated cameras will be in service, with the possibility of a second at a later stage. This improvement in the physical arrangements for Committee coverage will, I am sure, be welcomed by Committee Chairmen, Members and staff.
Finally, I should mention the modifications to the sound system here in the Chamber—which have already begun and which will be completed in two stages during the summer recesses of 1991 and 1992—and the installation of a new permanent lighting system. Prototypes of that will be demonstrated under operational conditions in the Chamber between 7 and 17 May for right hon. and hon. Members to view and comment upon subsequently if they wish. I have given more details of the lighting demonstration in answer to a written question this afternoon. It would, I think, be fair to say that all the

members of the Committee were very impressed by the prototype, but we shall await the reactions of more hon. Members before decisions are reached.
I now turn to a matter on which we were not able to secure a final decision before agreeing our report. As I said earlier, in the context of future capital expenditure on televising, a crucial feature of the permanent arrangements is the need for a new central control room from which the entire integrated operation will be managed. The existing control room in the Commonwealth Press Writing Room is simply not large enough for that purpose, and is in any case becoming increasingly unsuitable even for its present more limited role. The Select Committee has therefore asked the Parliamentary Works Office to carry out a series of feasibility studies and examinations of various possible sites for a new integrated control room.
After considerable analysis and discussion, the realistic options have now been reduced to three: inside the House, the cylindrical void in the tower above the Central Lobby dome; and outside the House, Nos. 4 and 7 Millbank. The former is a privately owned building, part of which the BBC has recently occupied as the base for its parliamentary operations, while the latter is under consideration by the PWO for renting as part of the scheme to rehouse staff who will be displaced from St. Stephen's house when it is demolished as a result of the Jubilee line extension. The case for and against each of the three options is set out in detail in the Committee's report, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments now.
On balance, the Broadcasting Committee takes the view that the Central Lobby tower represents an imaginative and structurally feasible solution, which, in the absence of any other suitable accommodation inside the House, ought to be pursued. Let me quote the reasoning set out in our report:
this proposal represents our preferred way of maintaining the broadcasting unit both psychologically and physically as an integral part of the service of the House. It cannot be emphasised too strongly
—this important point is sometimes misunderstood—
that the control room is the House's own facility and that its occupants, although not employed directly by the House, feel a loyalty to it rather than to what is usually described as 'the broadcasters'. Thus, a location within the building, although not absolutely essential, is strongly to be preferred on grounds of operational reliability, staff morale and administrative efficiency.
Naturally, cost has been an important factor in our consideration of the alternatives. Meaningful comparisons are complicated by the fact that, while the Central Lobby tower option would involve a rather larger initial capital outlay than either of the two Millbank sites, they in turn would entail substantial annual rental and other charges, in addition to the costs of refurbishment.
In the Committee's judgment, the £2 million estimated cost of the Central Lobby tower option should be viewed as a long-term investment in the permanent televising of the House's proceedings, and can be justified on that basis.
The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, fulfilling its duty under Standing Order No. 125 to
advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace … occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons",
has considered the possibility of siting the control room in the Central Lobby Tower and, at its meeting on 4 March 1991, rejected the idea for practical, financial and other


reasons set out in a letter to me from its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), which is published as appendix 11 with our report.
This difference between the two Committees, each rightly looking at the issue from its own point of view, has still to be resolved. I have already mentioned the question of cost. This is one of the factors which still has to be properly evaluated, since the estimates have been fluctuating as both Committees have been meeting. We hope to have a new paper before us shortly on the costings of the different options.
As this matter has yet to be considered by the full Services Committee, which I also chair, it would not be appropriate for me to say any more at this stage, except that an urgent resolution of the problem is essential if the new control room is to be operational by the summer of 1992. The House is not asked to take a view on this today.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate for the House if the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee were to take an entrenched position on this matter? Although we all respect that Committee's work, we very much hope that it will listen to the considerable work and thought that has been put into the recommendation that my right hon. Friend has advanced. The Committee would arouse great respect in the House if it felt flexible enough to change its position to accommodate those recommendations.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of thought and work has already gone into the proposition, as those of us on the Broadcasting Committee know well. As my hon. Friend knows, I have gone along with the view of the Broadcasting Committee on this matter, although, as I have said, the matter will also come before the Services Committee, which I also chair. So far, I have taken the view that my hon. Friend has outlined. I am sure that the members of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee who, perhaps understandably, are not here in force, unlike the members of the Broadcasting Committee, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
The House will expect me to say a few words about the parliamentary archives. The Select Committee did not examine in detail, as part of its consideration of the permanent arrangements, the future organisation, staffing, and funding of the archive, since a working party had already been established by the Clerks of the two Houses with precisely that remit. The Committee confined itself, therefore, to reaffirming the principle that the archive should continue to maintain complete tapes of all proceedings in the Chamber, as well as of any Committee proceedings covered by the broadcasters. But we also thought it right to draw attention to the anomaly which has arisen with regard to the archive, whereby its staff are employed by the other place, even though the vast majority of its work stems from the proceedings of this House.
To complicate matters further, the archive's accommodation is provided by the Commons, while its capital equipment needs have been met until recently by the Parliamentary Works Office, although this expenditure has now been switched, with effect from the current

Session, to the vote for House of Commons (Administration). The Committee expressed the hope that these issues would be addressed by the working party, which I understand has now submitted its report to the Clerks of the two Houses. The question of receipts from sales of archive material was not part of the working party's remit, but is being addressed separately by the Supervisor of Broadcasting. However, I believe that the receipts of sales from archives material is very small at present.
One other aspect of the archive which I ought to mention is the question of the uses to which archive material should be put—that is, other than for broadcasting purposes, to which specific guidelines already apply. The Committee has devoted considerable time and effort to the task of drawing up a set of guidelines for the non-broadcasting uses of archive material, which will prevent obvious abuses without being unduly restrictive in their effect. We believe that the guidelines contained in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the report should prove workable, although, of course, we will keep them under review.
There is, however, one aspect of the possible usage of archive material which we were not able to tackle as part of our report, and that is the area of party political or electoral campaigning. The Committee considered this matter at its meeting yesterday and decided that no further guidelines were needed for this purpose for the time being, but that the matter should be kept under review.
An issue which in previous debates many hon. Members considered to be important was the prospects for establishing a dedicated parliamentary television channel. The obstacles to the achievement of that objective have never been technical: they are financial. In the absence of public money—we are talking about an annual cost of several million pounds—any decision to initiate a dedicated channel has been dependent on the commercial judgments of those with a potential interest in such a project.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: It might be better if I made progress on this issue. Then I shall happily give way.
I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, as the report itself describes, real progress has been made since the last debate on televising some nine months ago. The Select Committee received three different proposals—from Commons Committee Television, the company which is currently responsible for providing coverage of Committees, Thames Television, and United Artists. The Committee welcomed all three schemes, details of which are set out in the report, as representing
a serious and commendable attempt to bring the goal of a dedicated channel nearer to realisation.
Having carefully considered the proposals and taken evidence from their promoters, the Committee concluded that the United Artists scheme was
the most thoroughly worked out and immediately practicable of the three".
This proposal involves live continuous coverage of the House of Commons, supplemented by extended coverage of the other place and of Committees. Later, material from overseas legislatures might be added. The service will be distributed initially by low-power satellite to cable heads


and will thus be available to any cable subscriber at no additional charge. The cost of the service will be borne entirely by the cable operators.
It is true that the potential reach of the service will be fairly small initially, at some 260,000 households by the end of this year, but on the latest available estimates from the cable industry, that figure is expected to rise to some 4·6 million households by the end of the decade. We should not lose sight in this context of the example of C-Span in the USA, which also started from small beginnings and has now developed into a full dedicated channel providing comprehensive coverage of Congress and its committees.
The Committee also hopes that it may be possible, subject to discussions involving the Independent Television Commission, for the service to be transmitted via one of the transponders on the Marco Polo satellite, which, as the House may know, is used for the moment by BSkyB. This would have the great advantage of removing any geographical limitation on the availability of the service, as anyone possessing, or willing to purchase, a so-called 'squarial' would have access to the channel.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House does not seem to appreciate how important televising the proceedings of this place is to the democratic process. We ought to consider television as a televised Hansard. The idea of the televised proceedings being available through United Artists to 260,000 cable recipients, perhaps increasing to a certain number, is pathetic. We should fund the service here, as our major contribution to the democratic process. Cannot the Leader of the House grasp that point?

Mr. MacGregor: That point was much discussed throughout the deliberations of the Committee. I make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, the dedicated channel is in addition to the other televising of Parliament that we have been discussing, which is available to everyone through the medium of broadcasting generally. Secondly, a substantial cost is involved in dedicated channels, and we have had proposals under which the cost will be met by the operators. Thirdly, as I have said, exactly as has happened in the United States, the number of people who will be able to see a dedicated channel through the cable system if they wish to do so will be fairly small in the initial stages. There will be considerable scope for expansion.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend comment on two points? First, he said that the Committee had come down in favour of the United Artists proposal. He should recognise that, although a majority of the Committee were in favour, it was a fairly narrow majority. It was by no means a unanimous decision. Secondly, my right hon. Friend must concede that at no time in its latter deliberations did the Committee make any effort whatever to solicit interest in the whole franchise. For that reason, if for no other, it is clear that many commercial interests which might have wished to put in a bid were denied the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MacGregor: Throughout its proceedings, the Committee took its view. Some of its conclusions were reached on the basis of majority vote. Throughout, it was able to hear views such as the one that my hon. Friend has just expressed. As my hon. Friend knows, when he made

his point in the Committee it did not command majority support. However, what I am about to say should help to deal with what he has said.
The Select Committee has urged United Artists to begin immediate negotiations with HOCBUL—and, of course, its successor, PARBUL—about its participation as a full member of the company. The United Artists proposal was one of three in front of the Committee, and was generally regarded as the best. We have made it clear that, while that proposal deserves every encouragement, it should not be regarded as the last word, and that others should feel free to come forward with schemes if they wish. That offer stands.
I note from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that he wishes to see a dedicated satellite channel
under the direct auspices of the House".
I cannot see what purpose this would serve, when United Artists is perfectly willing, through the cable industry, to fund its own proposal, which, I stress, will be subject to the same parliamentary control in all essential areas as the main televising operation. Nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's faith in the ability of the House to manage an undertaking such as a dedicated channel. The arrangements that we advocate are not only a very considerable advance on the situation to date but the most effective way of going forward.
Incidentally, the Select Committee has not, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, opened the door to commercial exploitation of the signal through the United Artists scheme. All that the Committee has done—as is clear from the published minutes of proceedings, which are included in the report—is to refuse to rule out in advance the principle of sponsorship for a dedicated channel. But I emphasise that any specific proposal of this sort—we have had one already from Thames Television—would require the Committee's express authority.
I hope that the House will agree that the United Artists service, which will begin in the autumn, represents a major step forward. I believe that it is very close, in spirit at any rate, to the sort of proposal canvassed during earlier debates by a number of hon. Members.
The other place has already agreed to its own Broadcasting Committee's report, which sets out permanent arrangements for televising similar to those contained in the report of the Committee in this House, which we are discussing today. I am sure that many hon. Members will have read the report of the debate in the other place, in which, the corresponding report received a very general welcome. If this House approves the motion now before it, the next step will be for a public tender to be held, leading to the selection of an operator responsible for providing the integrated coverage. It is hoped that the name of the operator will be known by the end of June. Subsequently, new licences will need to be granted to PARBUL by both Houses, assigning copyright in the signals to PARBUL, subject to certain conditions. The new arrangements will then be in place by the time the House returns in October from the summer recess.
The Select Committee has recommended in its report what I believe are sensible, practical arrangements for the future of parliamentary broadcasting. They are sensible because they provide Parliament with full and final control over the form of the signals; they will ensure an efficient and economical management of the television operation on an integrated basis, with clearly defined lines of


responsibility; and they give the broadcasters the assurance that their own legitimate interests are protected and, in particular, that their money is used cost-effectively and that the signals are of a technically acceptable standard.
Above all, the proposed arrangements carry forward the essential features of a system with which we are already familiar, and which we know works. Finally, as a bonus, there is at last a genuine prospect that a channel dedicated to live, continuous coverage of our proceedings will be in operation by the autumn.
I commend the Select Committee's report to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &amp;c. (House of Commons Paper No. 11) but declines to approve a Report which fails to establish a Broadcasting Unit as a Department of the House as recommended in paragraph 106 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 141, Session 1988–89), fails to provide a continuous satellite feed of House of Commons proceedings under the direct auspices of the House, and fails to prohibit the possible exploitation of the House of Commons' signal through commercial sponsorship.".
This is the third report on televising the Chamber since the House decided in principle, three years ago, that we should conduct an experiment. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c. throughout, as have a fair number of the other Members who serve on it. I had no hesitation in supporting the first two reports. The first was about how we should set up the experiment and the second was to assess how well the experiment had gone. The third report contains a recommendation for permanent arrangements for televising the House, and I am afraid that I cannot put my name to it.
I take that decision with some regret, because I have certainly enjoyed serving on the Select Committee and helping in the substantial extension of democracy that televising our proceedings has brought about. However, the report is flawed in two fundamental respects, which are referred to in the amendment.
I shall deal with those flaws shortly, but before the bad news that the Committee has not been able to agree on permanent arrangements, I should like to take the opportunity of referring to the good news about the experiment. Its result has been, as we all hoped, that unprecedented numbers of our fellow citizens can regularly watch the proceedings of the House and follow its debates. They see how well, or how badly, we react to the issues of the day.
Before I came to the House today I looked at some of the viewing figures of the principal programmes that use parliamentary material. I should never have expected those figures to be as good as they are—although they are not big in television terms. For example, the Channel 4 programme, "A Week in Politics", which has an unearthly transmission hour on Thursday night and is repeated on Sunday morning, has an audience of 200,000 to 300,000 on Thursday night and 100,000 to 200,000 for the Sunday morning repeat.
"Westminster Live", which carries Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and also goes out on Wednesdays, regularly has viewing figures of between 600,000 and 700,000. The programme planners had great confidence—they had more nerve than I should have had—and decided to have a programme over-run last week which took some time from the world snooker championship coverage. "The Parliament Programme" on Channel 4 had a steadily increasing audience, despite having another bad transmission time-12 noon daily. About a quarter of a million people now regularly watch that programme.
It is a great achievement that so many people watch our proceedings and that we have an archive of those proceedings. For example, we now have on film the speech by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), towards the end of last year, and the final speech as Prime Minister of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). We have those speeches on tape, and we can all play them and, certainly in my case, thoroughly enjoy them. That is an enrichment of our democracy.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one or two individuals may still resist, the opposition to televising our proceedings has virtually collapsed in the House? The voices that warned of all that might happen as a result of theexperiment—exhibitionism and a change in the character of the House—have been proved wrong. Televising the House now seems as natural as televising our party conferences, and as the reporting of our proceedings by Hansard and the newspapers. Television has come and it is never likely to go away.

Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend is right. Televising the House will probably continue to improve our procedures as we try to make them more relevant to the people watching and the people whom we represent.
It must be admitted, too, that television has meant that many, if not all, of us are seen more frequently by our constituents, although whether that will make us more or less likely to be re-elected remains to be seen. We all look forward to testing that theory as soon as possible.
Those viewing figures have been achieved despite the appalling slots that programme-planners have given to parliamentary coverage. I understand why the programmes have been given such slots—they will never achieve huge viewing figures—but I should have thought that it was worth trying to encourage the programme-makers to improve some of those slots and to move them from the twilight hours or the middle of the day.
I welcome much of the report. The Leader of the House spelt out several of the matters that I consider important. I welcome the improvements in Committee coverage and the use of remote cameras in Committee. I also welcome the idea of a central control room above Central Lobby. That makes use of space that would not otherwise be used and is an ideal location for a central control room.
I welcome some of the relaxation measures in the rules of coverage, although I believe that they do not go far enough. I have always believed that the job of trying to reflect what goes on in the Chamber should be left to television directors. It is their job to interpret the proceedings as they are seen from the Public Gallery. We restricted them greatly to begin with, but have become


increasingly relaxed and I do not believe that anyone has suffered. We should give the directors even greater freedom. Whichever side of the House disrupts our proceedings, the disruption should be intelligible to television viewers. For example, in the poll tax debate on 13 March, Conservative Members made a determined attempt to disrupt the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I do not blame them for doing so, as long as it is within the rules. However, such scenes should not be cut away from what can be seen from the Public Gallery.
Our rules on "undue disorder" are also unduly restrictive. It is ridiculous to require a locked picture of you, Mr. Speaker, when disruptions take place in the House. Television viewers simply see you looking worried. If the disruption is intelligible to those in the Press or Public Galleries, the television director should be enabled to make it intelligible to television viewers.
Those are the parts of the report with which, broadly speaking, I am pleased. However, two fundamental areas in which the report sadly fails caused me to table the amendment. The first relates to the absence of a recommendation to establish a Department of the House to control and supervise television coverage. I should emphasise to those who were not members of the Select Committee that the arrangements that we established for the experimental period were designed for just that purpose—they were experimental arrangements for an experimental period. The Leader of the House had difficulty explaining exactly what PARBUL or HOCBUL mean. We made a meal of the arrangements and they were unnecessarily uncomplicated. If the report goes through unamended, it will recommend an unnecessarily complicated managerial structure for a simple operation.
The Leader of the House admitted in his speech that there is a ludicrous lack of proper financial control and management. I am surprised that a former Conservative Chief Secretary should have such weak managerial and financial control.
I would happily give way to the Leader of the House if he could tell me what the television operation is now costing. I have asked that question many times in the Select Committee, but it is extremely difficult to get an answer because the costs and responsibilities are divided among many people. There is no clear answer about the receipts from the television operation. Appendix 9 contains some complicated information, but anyone in any doubt should simply read paragraph 29 of the Select Committee report which encapsulates the financial shambles that it recommends. It is not good enough for the permanent arrangements to be run on such a basis.

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at pages 38 and 39 of the report, he will see that the costs are set out clearly and simply. As a former Chief Secretary I can say that the information contained in those pages is far simpler to read than that offered in most costing operations of most companies in the public sector. The information is straightforward, clear and all there.

Mr. Grocott: I shall not betray in too much detail the look of bewilderment that crossed the right hon. Gentleman's face yesterday in the Select Committee when I asked him about receipts.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the responsibility for televising is divided between various

sections of the House, the broadcasters and others. Those broadcasters represent a fluctuating group. New broadcasters will be employed during the recommended franchise period, which is not satisfactory.
It is also important to consider the Committee's recommendations on personnel management—the people whose job it will be to deliver the signal. Paragraph 16 of the Select Committee report talks of "bright young people" doing "short stints as operators".
Is that really the way in which we want to provide for the permanent televising of the House, particularly if we are to have a control room above Central Lobby? Imagine people coming here for three or four months, then going on to do "Emu's World" or "The Price is Right" and then coming back here for another three or four months. That is a poor way in which to operate the permanent televising arrangements.
I believe that the permanent televising arrangements should be the responsibility of a Department of the House. That was the clear preference in the first report produced by the Select Committee. The Leader of the House has admitted that. The right hon. Gentleman was not then a member of the Select Committee and it is significant that it is those people who have come on to the Committee since the publication of that report who have managed, with the right hon. Gentleman's casting vote, to vote down the recommendation for a Department of the House to be responsible for the televising arrangements.
Paragraph 106 of the Select Committee's first report states:
We wish to make clear that the reasons, mainly contractual, which persuaded us not to recommend a fully-fledged House Broadcasting Unit for the experiment would not apply if permanent broadcasting were introduced and that such a Unit remains our preferred solution for the longer term.
It remains my preferred solution. There are overseas precedents as almost every other country that televises its Parliament has established the equivalent of a Department of the House to do that job. The management of the House also offers such a precedent as Hansard is a Department of the House. Given that we continually refer to the televising operation as an electronic Hansard, we should establish a Department of the House to do the job.

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I greatly respect his views and contributions to the Select Committee. I, too, have spoken in favour of a House of Commons fully fledged Department, which would be responsible for the televising arrangements, but I support the main recommendations of the Select Committee report.
The report has considered the proposals for a parliamentary broadcasting unit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House, because of its majority membership on the board of directors, will continue, effectively, to call the shots? We will therefore have all the advantages of a fully fledged House of Commons broadcasting unit, but we shall have none of the disadvantages associated with having to bear all the costs as others will chip in. Although that arrangement may be different from that adopted in other countries, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it serves to our considerable advantage?

Mr. Grocott: We already cover a substantial proportion of the costs, but, under the present arrangements, we get none of the receipts. Surely there is nothing simpler than


to have a Select Committee responsible to the House and a Department of the House responsible to that Select Committee. Why are we making such a meal out of what is a simple operation?

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Since we are getting close to a general election and are likely to have a Labour Government, what would the Labour Government do? I hope that my hon. Friend does not consider that a trick question—it is not meant as such.

Mr. Grocott: I strongly believe that we should establish a Department of the House. There is ample precedent for so doing and it should be our preferred option.
A Department of the House would mean that the televising operation would be subject to better financial control, but, above all, I believe that that Department would do the job more effectively than what has been proposed.
The directors of the unit would be employed by the House and would be here permanently. They would be as familiar with the House and its operations as are all the other staff. It is all very well to say that bright young directors would be the ideal people to call the shots in the control room, but it would be far better to anticipate those shots than to react to them quickly.
When a Minister makes a statement, which is followed by questions, we know that that routine follows acknowledged rules. We all know who is likely to be called—I am sure most of us would say that it is rarely us. I had eight years away from this place and it took me at least two years to reacquaint myself with that routine.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Two years or longer?

Mr. Grocott: I am prepared to accept that I am still learning.
It is only when one has a feel for the place and knows those who have a particular interest in a particular subject that one can anticipate what might happen. If directors were full-time members of staff they would be familiar with the House. We would know them and we could talk and complain to them; just as we can to the Hansard writers. Surely that would be a far more effective way in which to operate the permanent broadcasting arrangements than to employ people on short-term contracts under a sub-contractor.
Paragraph 16 of the report claims that we would not be able to recruit people to do the job—that is a fatuous suggestion. We have managed to recruit an outstanding permanent controller of broadcasting and an outstanding permanent technical adviser. The Canadian legislature does not have the slightest problem recruiting people for such full-time jobs.
The report also asks how the employees of the broadcasting unit would cope with the problems posed by the recesses. It is as though people who work for television companies are fundamentally different from everyone else. Every other servant of the House manages to cope with the recesses. There is a balance between the excessive hours worked during a Session and the long recesses. I regret to say that Members do not enjoy such long recesses. Surely that balance could equally apply to those working in the broadcasting unit as it does to anyone else working in the

House. There is an overwhelming case in favour of establishing a Department of the House to be responsible for the permanent televising arrangements. The present proposals will not stand the test of time.
The other crucial issue on which my hon. Friends and I disagree with the Select Committee report's recommendations relates to the dedicated channel. The clear wish of most hon. Members—we repeated it in the Select Committee report—is that there should be some facility for a continuous, unedited signal from the Chamber which should be available for people. They can then decide which bits they want to watch, just as people can come in and out of the Public Gallery or read the relevant sections of Hansard in which they are interested. Let me make it crystal clear that if the House wants that to happen we cannot will the end without willing the means. It is fatuous to pretend that it will ever be a wildly attractive commercial proposition, even when one is talking about audience figures of those that I mentioned for package programmes—about 250,000.
If an unedited signal went out all the time, the viewing figures would be much lower than that for most of the time. One has to compare those viewing figures, as a commercial proposition, with the viewing figures of some of the more popular television programmes. The 1990 record was taken by "Coronation Street" with 19·2 million. "Only Fools and Horses" had 17·9 million viewers and the World Cup had 16·6 million. Some of our most outstanding speakers would have difficulty attracting audiences such as that. It will never be an attractive commercial proposition to deliver an unedited signal to our constituents. I cannot say that I blame them. I should not want to sit endlessly watching such a programme. The question, however, is whether the facility should be there for people to use, if they want to do so.
That part of the report which deals with our pretty pathetic efforts to sort out a continuous dedicated channel is to be found in paragraphs 103 to 124. It is littered with hopes and expectations and is completely dependent on other people's commercial judgment. The fundamental choice that has to be made relates to whether our constituents should receive an unedited signal on the basis of the commercial judgment of individual entrepreneurs, or whether they should receive it as of right because the House wills that they should receive it as of right. I do not have the slightest doubt that the second choice should prevail. We should not say that the signal, via satellite, should be a loss leader for some company, or that it should be something nice for that company to put on its letter headings. Furthermore, it should not be possible for a conglomerate, based abroad, to decide that this would be a nice little and relatively inexpensive, from its point of view, function for it to perform.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not see any disadvantage in a loss leader. Such a loss leader is provided by C-Span in the United States. It is high-calibre, public affairs coverage that is interspersed with other material. That makes it a very good package. There is no harm in that. The problem is that in this country it could not go out on cable; it would have to go out on satellite to reach the population. That would result in a commercial cost that should be met by the House.

Mr. Grocott: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House was pretty woolly on the question of


this resulting in an exorbitant cost. If he has different figures, I hope that he will let me know. According to the report, the Independent Television Commission has said that we can obtain access to the Marco Polo satellite for a nominal rental. The only direct cost to this House would be the uplink cost of about £500,000. That is a lot of money. However, as a proportion of expenditure in other areas of our public life, it is fairly trivial. The Central Office of Information budget, for example, amounts to £180 million. Moreover, the Government's departmental advertising budget, as the National Audit Office has spelt out, amounts to about £200 million, £100 million of which is spent on media—largely television—advertising. If we are to believe the constitutional rule books, the fundamental job of this House is to supervise the Executive and to see that Government Departments do their job properly. For the House, therefore, to say that it is outrageous to spend £500,000 on ensuring that all our constituents have access to the signal is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Nelson: I apologise for intervening again, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to give the impression—I understand that he speaks for the Labour Opposition—that he, like I, wants all his constituents to have the option of tuning into a dedicated televising of Parliament programme, but he is not offering that. Does he agree that the only way in which we could offer it to all our constituents would be by buying Channel 5 at enormous cost? We could make that decision, but that is not the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If instead he proposes simply to cover the cost, at public expense, of tuning in to a particular satellite, still only a very small minority of people will want to watch the programme. What, therefore, is he proposing on behalf of the Opposition? How will his proposals reach all the people who want to tune in to Parliament?

Mr. Grocott: I made it perfectly clear in our debate on the Select Committee's second report that for the foreseeable future the bulk of the people of this country will have to depend on getting any information about the proceedings in this House from the established main network channels and the packages that they provide. There is not the slightest doubt about that. However, I suggest that, via the Marco Polo satellite, which means via a squarial—

Mr. Nelson: It is minute.

Mr. Grocott: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman—it is minute. If the hon. Gentleman is recommending that one of the main terrestrial channels should be taken over, I should find it very difficult to justify that to any of my constituents. It would be hard to convince them that BBCI, BBC2, ITVI, ITV2, or Channel 4 should be wiped out and given over to parliamentary coverage. It would not be too popular a proposal. Under my satellite proposals, initially, schools, universities and libraries would want access to it. However, every individual would have access to the signal by means of satellite coverage.

Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if United Artists were to say that that proposal should go ahead, the only difference would be that there

would be no cost to public funds? It would do precisely what the hon. Gentleman proposes. It would use the Marco Polo satellite.

Mr. Grocott: I find this appeal amusing—"Please, is there a commercial operation out there, somewhere, to do the job for us? We don't think that it's important enough for us to ensure that our constituents get the signal, if they want it, so we just hope that some company will think that it is in its financial interests to deliver the signal." That is not good enough for me. What guarantee is there that six months from now such a company might decide that it was not in its commercial interests to continue the service? That happened with a cable operation not so long ago. We do not operate Hansard on that basis. We do not say, "We shall operate Hansard if we can, but we won't if we can't." It is a fundamental operation that should be available to all our constituents.

Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am also interested in a dedicated channel, but he must make his proposition clear to the House and to others who take an interest in the subject. The fact is that the Marco Polo satellite is on its way out. I understand that it is being used by United Artists very much as a temporary measure. It will need to look for an alternative for its cable service. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest, once the Marco Polo satellite disappears? Has he encouraged his constituents to believe that they could receive a satellite service in that way? What will follow it? Does he suggest that the House should then opt for Astra, or some other satellite?

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman makes all sorts of speculations about what might happen in the satellite and cable industry. I am much less clear about the future than he is. However, I know that the Marco Polo system—the MAC system—is far better technically. Therefore, it is highly desirable that such a system should be preserved. However, that is not the question that we must address. We need to ask whether the House should provide the means for continuous coverage, to which our constituents can have access. The answer to that question should he emphatically yes.
As for sponsorship, we debated that subject in Committee and considered how to finance the operation without forking out the £500,000 which I guess it would cost to do it ourselves. One possibility which I emphatically wanted ruled out but which the Committee would not rule out was of the Commons signal being sponsored. That proposal is horrendous. There is nothing quite so amusing as the Tory party finding itself in conflict on two of its professed deepest principles. One is a great respect for our traditions, of which the House is one; the other is a great respect for the pound sterling and anything that might make a few bob. Sponsorship brings those two values into a horrendous collision.
The ITC has made it clear that news programmes cannot be sponsored, for the most obvious reasons. I do not like the idea of sponsorship for any programme for reasons which it would be lengthy and irrelevant to go into now, but the possibility of seeing on the television screen the message, "This signal is brought to you live via Arthur Daley Enterprises," is horrendous.
If Conservative Members even contemplate the idea, let them be consistent. If the electronic Hansard were to be sponsored, why not Hansard itself? Why could we not have


company logos on the front of Hansard? Why not have the Strangers Gallery sponsored, with company logos displayed on it? We might even have company hospitality suites, where people could watch Prime Minister's Question Time with drinks and smoked salmon. That seems to be the logic of the commercial approach. I see hon. Members nodding, but no one wants to say anything. I will gladly give way to any hon. Member who thinks that we should have company hospitality suites.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Since my hon. Friend is talking about commercial matters, may I tell him that my speeches are now available on an 0896 number for 35p a minute at the off-peak rate. It is the only service on that number where the heavy breathing is at my end.

Mr. Grocott: I hope that the possibility of the Commons signal being sponsored is as ludicrous to everyone as is the suggestion of sponsorship of the other two means of communication, Hansard and the Strangers Gallery. The Select Committee could at least have ruled that out by voting for my amendment.
We come back to the two fundamental differences which make it impossible for me to support the Select Committee report. As a Select Committee we had the job of recommending a permanent system for televising the proceedings of the House—a tremendous advance in our democracy which has been enormously successful. The report, unlike most Select Committee reports, was never going to gather dust. It was to provide the guidelines for operators, for the basis of the financial arrangements and for the way in which we should deliver the signal to our constituents. I fear that we have produced a rambling shambles of a document which does not address the two key issues but comes up with a botched compromise which is inconsistent. I hope that my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members will support the amendment.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I should like to start by paying tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as chairman of the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd. The role of the Chairman of Ways and Means has not been fully recognised. It may yet continue to be important in any survivor to the HOCBUL arrangement. I should like to say on behalf of the Select Committee, if I may, that the House is grateful to you for what you have done in that regard.
Tributes are due from lowly members of the Select Committee, first, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who picked up the baton at a difficult time and who managed the proceedings of the Committee with great skill, sensitivity and leadership. It was also appropriate that one member of the Select Committee was elevated to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. Through your chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through that elevation, the Committee had a new influence.
Hon. Members who have followed the matter since February 1988 feel that it is of great consequence, and that what the House has achieved in implementing the televising of its proceedings is nothing less than a major constitutional step in democratic progress. Those who would cast such things aside and make light of them fail to

recognise the great benefits that televising has already brought to parliamentary communication and public understanding of our proceedings.
It has rightly been pointed out that many of the alarmist fears expressed in 1988 have given way to a recognition that it is in our interests and in the public interest for the House to be televised. Far from the procedures or the cherished traditions of the House being abandoned, by and large they have carried on much as before. The only change for the better is that people can see more clearly and understand not just by listening or reading what we are about.
I give two major examples in the last year, the first more uncomfortable than the second. During the leadership change in the Government, I believe that it was important for the public to see what was happening in the House. They were entitled to judge by the contributions and emotion of the House the decisions that we were taking. Uncomfortable as the aftermath may have been for some of us, I believe that what happened has been vindicated by events and judged by television to be right. The new leader of the Government and of the Conservative party is an outstanding leader who comes over extremely well to the public.
The second example was the Gulf war. I remember vividly being in the Chamber during the emergency debate on the Falklands, as will other right hon. and hon. Members. On that great, sensitive and important occasion, there was no television. The public were unaware of the emotion of the House. It was up to us vicariously to report it to our constituents. During the Gulf war, there was great public interest day by day in the statements in the House and in the representations of hon. Members on behalf of constituents.
All the people have been able to use the new medium to see the democratic process at work through a visual report which did not exist previously. I profoundly believe that Parliament has taken an historic step forward in introducing the televising of the House and that future generations will be indebted to its courage in making that decision.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend has said that the public can now see great, important and sensitive decisions. He is right, provided news editors consider that those decisions are great, important and sensitive, but great, important and sensitive decisions which affect tiny communities such as the Scottish fishermen are being, and will be, denied the very coverage to which my hon. Friend thinks they are entitled.

Mr. Nelson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to see more regional coverage and more television coverage of Back-Bench contributions on issues of importance to our constituents. However, I disagree with him to the extent that I feel that much of the coverage would never have taken place before. There is more net television coverage of regional and individual issues than ever before. It is a net benefit, and a great step forward. More could be done to draw attention to regional and individual issues, and that is part of the debate about a dedicated channel.
I want to turn to future arrangements and the setting up of a parliamentary broadcasting unit. As I said in an earlier intervention, although I respect the point of view of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I believe


that we will have the best of both worlds under the proposed arrangements. As we will have a majority of the board members of the new broadcasting unit, we will have control over a body which will be spending a sizeable sum of money—some £2 million this year—broadly half of which is the cost of the broadcasters. The other half covers the cost of the House of Commons and the Government. So it will be half private sector and half public sector, but wholly in the control of the House. There would have to be pretty compelling reasons for us to insist that the private sector made no financial contribution, although that would not result in any substantial benefit in terms of the control or direction of the broadcasting unit.
It is important to remember that nothing is immutable. We can change things. If it does not work out and a broadcasting company defaults, the matter can come back to the House and we can make other arrangements. However, after the tried and tested experience of the experimental period, why should we reject a contribution from the broadcasting companies, which in my view have been generous and responsible in the way in which they have conducted those affairs, and insist, perhaps for some ideological reason, that the entire cost should be carried by the House? I do not think that it is necessary, and if we can mitigate the cost, so much the better.
We will also have to consider carefully the arrangements for a permanent channel. I have said in previous debates that I would like as many people as possible to be able to tune in to a debate of their interest—not just to see the highlights on the news at 6 o'clock or 9 o'clock but to see an entire debate. Only by listening and watching an entire debate can those interested in a particular matter get the full flavour and meaning of the issues being debated in the House. We will find that there is an enormous latent audience interested in particular issues.
Experience in Canada suggests that, when there is a debate on agriculture, a vast community of people who arc directly affected by the issues and decisions of their legislature will listen in. Many of them will watch the debates more avidly than Members of Parliament and become extremely well tutored and informed. Admittedly, they will then put pressure on us as their elected representatives, but if we are aiming for a more informed public debate about major issues, we have everything to gain and nothing to fear from a dedicated channel.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. He is right to say that global viewing figures give a completely misleading impression. We should be looking at the different interest groups that will watch different debates at different times according to the subject that is being discussed. All those interest groups add up to some pretty impressive viewing figures.

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Research carried out in Britain and abroad shows that a surprising number of special interest groups would benefit from such access. It should be our business to communicate to them by making that signal available.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that it was not technical problems that were holding us back. I believe that technical problems are holding us back. If it were now possible at a reasonable cost to have a terrestrial channel available so that our constituents could switch to Channel 12, for example, and watch the proceedings of the

House in the same way as people can watch the proceedings in Canada, I would be in favour of that, and I would be prepared to vote for rendering public moneys for it.
Half our job is to do our job and the other half is to communicate what we are doing. It is an important part of our votes and our proceedings to spend money on telling our public and our representatives what we are doing. If it could be done at a reasonable cost, and the technology allowed a terrestrial channel, we would vote in favour of it. However, it is not possible.
I understand that only one terrestrial channel is available in addition to the four existing channels, and that is the proposed Channel 5. It would be difficult to argue on an opportunity cost basis that we should take that channel. Apart from the fact that the costs would be enormous, we would be denying many other franchises and companies that wished to use it. For the time being at least, and largely for technological reasons, we are limited to providing a dedicated channel by means of either a cable message from the House or via a satellite communication to those who receive it directly from a satellite or those who receive their television on a cable, which in turn receives a message via a satellite.
It matters not to me whether the satellite that communicates our signal is of a new or old variety, providing that it does the job. The key question is how many people will be able to tune in and obtain the dedicated channel from the cable system. Under any of the options currently available, a relatively small proportion of the viewing populace will be able to see our dedicated gavel-to-gavel proceedings, whether we adopt the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) or the line taken by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. We can only move with what is available.
The proposals made present the opportunity of immediacy rather than further delay before our public are allowed to see a channel dedicated to the proceedings of the House. We have the opportunity to reach many more people than we do currently and much more gavel-to-gavel continuous coverage of entire debates. As that is a practical proposition that will be available from the autumn this year, the House ought to buy it.
For all those reasons, I believe that the proposed organisation and medium of communication are reasonable, practical and viable. It would be a further great step forward if the House were to approve the Committee's recommendations tonight.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be voting for the recommendations that have been made; I shall also support the amendment for which I voted in Committee.
In my view, we should have a broadcasting unit as a Department of the House. I accept what the Leader of the House said, that there is parliamentary control over the method that the Committee proposed. I also accept his view that the reason that we have got no further is purely financial and not ideological.
Some years ago, when I was chairman of the all-party group on televising the House, when televising the House was not as popular as it became after the experiment, I visited a number of different parts of the world where the legislatures had broadcasting units.
A broadcasting unit is not some left-wing ideological idea. The first time I saw it was in the United States of America. The Senate had a broadcasting unit that we visited. Those who worked for it were employees of the Senate. Just as Mr. Speaker plays an important part, although not directly, in the way in which the experiment is conducted in the House and the cameras are used, in the Senate that comes under the general guidance of the Leader of the House.
As the years develop, we must bear in mind that broadcasting unit—an electronic Hansard. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, who knows what may happen next year? The hon. Member for Chichester and I may disagree when we vote, but in the past two or three years that we have been on the Committee we have followed lines of thought as far as we thought possible and then, six months later, on the advice of the staff who work to us, we find that a chink of light appears and we move in a direction that we had not thought was possible. Over 200 years, Hansard has developed in a particular way and has a world reputation for what it does, but there must be an electronic Hansard as well.
I want to deal with the location of the broadcasting unit, whatever its name. In our report we disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee that the new control room should not be sited within Central Lobby. We went up the Central Lobby tower—I did not even know it existed—to see what it was like. It was like a 1930s version—I am old enough to have seen it—of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". It is extraordinary. One felt that if one put a foot wrong, one could float or perhaps fall down. In the report, we reiterate our preference for the Central Lobby tower as the location for the proposed integrated control room, and we recommend that that solution should be adopted by the House, provided that the remaining practical difficulties can be overcome.
As I have said, I am in favour of a broadcasting unit. It should be located in the House and not across the road. We would not put Hansard across the road in the Queen Elizabeth II buildings. Hansard belongs to the House of Commons. It is important that it is here for security reasons, let alone all the other reasons for its presence here over the past 200 years. I sometimes think that those with whom we argue do not have the right idea even about the Committee's proposal for something that is not a full broadcasting unit. They think that it is something to do with the BBC, the Independent Television Commission or those television people, and that the best place for it is away from the House of Commons, because it is a slight nuisance and not a real adjunct to the work of the House.
Our experiment has shown that the televising of Parliament is as important as Hansard and is having a profound effect on the way in which the British people look at the House of Commons and the way it works. The attitude of some in the House is similar to a story that I heard when I was in the Royal Air Force at the beginning of the war. The RAF had used carriers for planes before the war. The Royal Navy guided the small carriers and the RAF did the flying. A naval captain would not turn his vessel into the wind because he believed that the advice from the young RAF personnel was nonsense. Until the

planes went into the sea, he was not prepared to listen to a new idea. He believed that it was nothing to do with the Royal Navy. Some people seem to think that the televising of the House is not part of the House of Commons and that it should be located with the broadcasters. They seem to believe that it can be brought in with wires or something of that sort.
I have sat through all our deliberations in Committee mainly to speak in support of the idea that the integrated control room should, if possible, be located in the House, and the central unit should be above Central Lobby.
Regional coverage is one of the good things to come out of the televising of Parliament. Northern Ireland, where I was earlier this week, picks up the contributions of the 16 Members who attend the House from the Province. When I return home to my native Wales, I see that it picks up matters concerning that area. I am sure that the same happens in Scotland. I wish that it happened in the English regions. I imagine that London Members miss out, because everything tends to be national. However, at least something is happening on regional coverage.
I am glad that more is to happen on Committee coverage. Over the past two or three years, all the members of the Select Committee have spoken in favour of Committee coverage. I hope that it will go further. In the autumn, there will be another step forward. The work in Committee, particularly when we have a dedicated channel, will be of great interest, if not to people in general, to interest groups concerned with certain aspects of legislation.
As I have said, some years ago I was the chairman of the all-party group on the televising of Parliament. I was moved by the feeling that the spread of democracy demanded that people should see what goes on. Even now, some things are not understood. If this debate were being televised, people would ask why so few Members were in the Chamber. In fact, I am cutting a Committee upstairs now. Many other things take place here than just a perpetual meeting of the "city council". However, many of the great occasions or events, such as the virtual disappearance from political life of the previous Prime Minister, will enliven a discussion for centuries to come.
I wish that we could have seen the debates on the American colonies that took place in the Chamber round the corner, between Pitt and Fox. It would have been wonderful to comprehend the real arguments. Nowadays, they are over-simplified. In the new book about Lord Halifax, "The Holy Fox", I read another interpretation of the events of 1940 when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister and Lord Halifax nearly became Prime Minister. There are bits of that that would not have been shown on television. As late as 1941—I am sure that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) was not aware of it; I was not—members of the Government were having discussions with the Germans in Switzerland. Had I known, I would have been less keen on what I was doing. That would not have appeared on television, but one would have been able to see the mood of the House.
We are not doing this for historical reasons, although that issue arises. The televising of Parliament is an important social and political development. It has not ruined newspapers. It has made some of the superficial reporting of the House almost redundant. Newspaper


commentators who look at this place in depth have not had their work made easier, but one reads them in a different context when one can watch events on television.
I commend the report. For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) I shall be voting for the amendment, because that is the way that we have to go. I voted for it in Committee. In general, it is an excellent report and we should commend the Leader of the House since he has taken over the chairmanship. We should also commend the Supervisor of Broadcasting and his staff, without whom we would not have got nearly as far. We should also commend the Clerks of the Committee. Hon. Members attend every couple of weeks and express our views, but the work is done by others.
We are moving in the right direction. The televising of Parliament is of great importance. This is not the end of the story. It will develop in other ways. It is important that we have a dedicated channel. We have moved towards that, and it is important that we go further.

Mr. Roger Gale: I voted against the report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting and I regret that I cannot support it tonight. Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I have been a member of the Committee since it first sat and, like him, I enjoyed its deliberations enormously. I appreciated the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and the present Leader of the House. The work of the Committee has added greatly to the appreciation of our work by those outside the House.
Until now, the Committee has sought to deliver the best to the House and to the public. It saddens me enormously to have to say that I believe that we are asking the House to accept second best.
When we began our deliberations, we were criticised for taking a long time to get the technology right and were accused of shilly-shallying. We were told, "We know that you are opposed to it; get the cameras in." We resisted that temptation and as a result of the work of the Committee, of visits to Canada and of our examination of the work of C-Span—which has been referred to often and to which I shall refer again—we were able to deliver state-of-the-art technology and an improved lighting system.
I should like to pay tribute to all the technicians involved and to the Supervisor of Broadcasting for their hard work, and to the Director of Television, Mr. Patrick Harpur, and the people working with him since televising began. The technical quality of sound in the Chamber may leave something to be desired, but the technical quality of the pictures has been first rate. That has been recognised in the United Kingdom and worldwide. It is a pity therefore that we are falling down badly in this report. Since televising the House began, it has been claimed that we are seeking to enhance democracy. Over and again, hon. Members have reiterated the importance of public access to the work of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made much play of that.
The proposals in the report will not enhance democracy and public access to the Chamber but, sadly, will restrict them. If we adopt the report, we will put into the hands of

broadcasters—the BBC and ITN—the editorial control of the television coverage of the House. We will be paying lip service to the concept of a dedicated channel, which, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, was determined in our first report. We will hand control to an American cable company. I have no quarrel with the professional ability and technical expertise of United Artists—I am sure that it will do a good job—but I question whether the Canadian Parliament would hand control of its dedicated channel to the Americans, or whether the Americans would give the control of C-Span to the Japanese. It is curious that the mother of Parliaments is preparing to hand to an overseas company control—without offering it to anybody else, which is the crucial point—of something that does not approach a dedicated channel.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Select Committee on Broadcasting considered offers from three companies. For what? For the provision of a dedicated channel. No one is interested in the scraps left by the BBC and ITN. It is inconceivable that any company considering a dedicated channel would consider those leftovers to be commercially viable.
Much has been made of the prospects for funding a unit at the House and a dedicated channel. I believe that they cannot be separated; they must be considered together. The Committee failed to grasp the fact that the production of a signal from the House and its transmission to the public by a dedicated channel should be inseparable. That is why the proposal is half-baked. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the production of a signal from the Chamber and a dedicated channel would cost millions of pounds, but he did not quantify the figure.
I am sorry that I cannot agree totally with the hon. Member for The Wrekin, and I shall explain why later. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the public subsidy of public information services. My best estimate suggests that the House spends more than £450 million a year on public information services, such as the BBC World Service, S4C, the Central Office of Information and Hansard. That is a colossal sum. To pretend that the House has never set a precedent for subsidising information from the House is wrong. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, the House committed itself to spending £10 million a year to provide a Gaelic service to a maximum audience of 80,000 people, yet we are not prepared to spend less than that sum to carry the proceedings of the mother of Parliaments to the electorate of the United Kingdom. That is quite incredible.
I disagree with the amendment, because I do not believe that it is necessary for the House to provide that massive subsidy. A unit of the House, either by franchise or by direct control, should be able to sell its signals not only to the BBC and the independent television companies, which quite properly will want to use excerpts, but to overseas organisations such as CNN, C-Span, the Canadian Broadcasting Services, and to the Commonwealth countries and private industry. In the long term, such an operation, considered as a whole and not in part, as the report has, should be commercially viable. If the House has to underwrite that in the short term, that is entirely proper, because having voted the end, we should vote the means.
We have said time and again that the British public should have the right to see the proceedings of the House. The Select Committee on Broadcasting will consider a practice undertaken by the hon. Member for Banff and


Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who showed Scottish fishermen in his constituency an excerpt from a debate in the House that was relevant to them. No one would suggest that that debate was of riveting interest to the vast majority of people in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it affected the livelihoods of fishermen in Scotland. They had a passionate and burning interest and naturally wanted to see it. Why did he have to take a cassette to his constituents so that they could watch our deliberations? Why were they unable to watch it on a dedicated channel? Answer: because, having willed the ends, the House refuses to will the means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester asked whether the problem was technical. The technical solution that we are being offered—again, I disagree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin—is a cable service that will reach a maximum audience of 250,000 people, and, by the end of the century, will perhaps reach 4·5 million people.
In my maiden speech, I advocated the development of cable. I am passionately committed to that development, because I believe that cable delivery will be the system for homes of the future, not only for television pictures and entertainment, but for home services, for data and for telephone. I have never made a secret of my belief, but it would be wrong to suggest that such a development will be rapid.
It would be even more wrong to suggest that it would not be many years—if ever—before large areas of the United Kingdom, and especially rural areas, received cable. Are we saying that people in rural areas—for example, the farming constituencies that I and many other hon. Members represent—shall not have access to the proceedings of the House? It is already available to them.
It is suggested that United Artists, having seized its opportunity to steal a march on the rest of the industry to provide the cable service to a quarter of a million people out of the whole electorate of the United Kingdom, should take the Marco Polo satellite dish, which was discarded by BSB, and deliver the signal to the home by that means.
There is no question but that, on the cheap, that satellite would be a good mode of delivery to cable head ends for United Artists. Nobody would deny that, but are we seriously suggesting that the people who have an interest in watching the unedited proceedings of the House will buy from a warehouse full of unused squarial technology that is already out of date? The hon. Member for The Wrekin said that it was a first-rate system. It is sad that, like other first-rate systems in other technologies, it is already out of date. To tell someone to buy a squarial is like today telling someone to buy a Philips cassette system.

Mr. Tony Banks: Or a Trabant.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentions a Trabant. I hesitate to put the Marco Polo satellite and the MAC technology in the same class as the Trabant. The Marco Polo satellite is as out of date as the Greater London council. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West promotes out-of-date technology, because that is in line with much of his party's thinking on many issues. Marco Polo is about as much use as a flying dustbin, and we should recognise that. The MAC technology that has been

developed is out of date. Successful digital television transmission trials are taking place in the United States, and they represent the technology of tomorrow.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because, apart from his rather unkind comments about the GLC, he is making an interesting, useful and informative speech. He has far more technical knowledge than I, so I hope that he will tell us whether—as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said—it is impossible to establish a terrestrial channel with an allocated frequency.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Member for leading me to the end of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said that the difficulties were technical, not financial. I must gainsay that. I noted with great care the criteria listed by my right hon. Friend when he promoted the report. He said that the criteria applied by the Select Committee were parliamentary control—quite rightly—cost-effectiveness and the fair distribution of costs. Not one criterion relates to the public availability of the proceedings of the House. My right hon. Friend also said that the difficulties were not technical, but financial, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester says that it is not technically possible.
I wish to return to a point made by an hon. Member who is not here and whose name escapes me for the moment. He has done much work on the subject, and suggested a while ago that there should be a dedicated channel as a prerequisite to the televising of the House. I supported his amendment to the last report. We were told that we were trying to obstruct further televising of the House, but the Committee went ahead and persuaded Sky Television, with help from British Telecom and Astra, to provide a channel. For one glorious fortnight at the start of the experiment, when the cameras were first switched on, there was gavel-to-gavel coverage—as the Americans would say—or mace-to-mace coverage as we would prefer to say. There were no technical problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester will intervene in a moment if I do not answer his unasked question. Technically, delivery is possible, but who can receive it? The answer is, people with Astra satellite reception, Sky or whichever system one chooses which goes directly into the home. Such systems are now readily receivable. Anyone in the United Kingdom who wants to receive the broadcast can do so. It is clear that, for the foreseeable future, the majority of people in outlying areas that will not have cable will have to rely on satellite reception, not only for the televised proceedings of the House but for the many entertainment services that will be developed.
It is possible for us to set up a unit of the House. The Select Committee saw the unit of the House that was established in Canada and the excellent OASIS information system enjoyed by Canadian members. Many of us have been to the United States—the work of C-Span has been mentioned several times. American citizens have not one, but two television channels from their Houses—or legislature—which carry not only the unedited proceedings, but valuable background information. The channels also operate when the Houses are not sitting.
In America, there has been no difficulty in filling air time on C-Span. Can anyone seriously suggest that, during the long and short recesses of the House, there is not a wealth of Committee material and material from another


place for which there is usually no time during ordinary transmissions? Is anyone suggesting that there would not be a demand for that?

Mr. Rees: I should have intervened when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the argument, which I support, for a Department of the House. I am concerned about the lack of facilities in areas such as that which I represent. For a long time to come, I do not envisage many people in such areas being able to tap into a terrestrial channel—

Mr. Tony Banks: Satellite.

Mr. Rees: —into satellite or cable. He is not answering the main question with which we are wrestling. What about the spare channel? I am not saying that we could have it, but the only way that people in my area could see the proceedings would be to use Channel 5.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman must concede that, technically, Channel 5 will also not reach the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a technical fact of life. The reception equipment for direct broadcast satellite is relatively inexpensive. Many people have already bought dishes in order to receive entertainment channels.
I find it hard to believe that people who want to receive the proceedings of the House—such as those in community centres or in businesses—would not buy dishes. A whole raft of organisations would undoubtedly want to receive the proceedings, but we are denying people the opportunity to do so. I am not talking about universal coverage. I am not saying that everyone who wants to watch will automatically be able to do so by a flick of the button on their existing television sets. That is patently not so. But what I am suggesting is far better than what is proposed in the report.
The Select Committee has failed the House—it is as simple as that—by not considering the whole package, by not inviting tenders or inviting willing broadcasters to come to the House, to work with us as a unit of the House but to take over the televising of the Chamber and then take the signal to the entire British public.
It is quite simple. If the Director of Television were to widen his shot to show the Chamber as it is now, the British public would see that this half-empty Chamber of the House of Commons is, if it adopts the report, going to vote to deny the public access to its proceedings.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will forgive me if I do not pursue the aspects of the report or the line of argument that he pursued. As he is aware, I do not command anything like his technical expertise about the different systems and options which may or may not be available.
Like the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I do not share the apocalyptic view of the report expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Select Committee has done a reasonable job. Although the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and I voted in different ways when we came formally to approve the report—I voted for the report—that does not mean that the right hon. Gentleman and I depart from the sentiment expressed in the Labour party's amendment. If there is to be a Division at the end of this debate, those of us who feel that these matters are

important should register that fact in the Lobbies. However, I would hate to see the report fall at this juncture. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and I share the same opinion about that, despite the fact that we voted in different ways at the end of the Select Committee's proceedings.
Of those deserving congratulations on the success of the televising experiment so far, I single out the broadcasters. I recall the original debate that was so skilfully introduced by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), and I remember some of the dire warnings that were uttered on that occasion. If the word "apocalypse" is appropriate, I remember the apocalyptic speech of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the dreadful warnings about what the horrible, awful, scheming, plotting and subversive broadcasters would do if, in our naivety, the House was collectively to allow the broadcasters through the door.
All political parties have rows with specific programmes, editors and certain aspects of editorial policy. When televising any set event in the Chamber or in a studio, the programme editor or director and broadcaster want to make a good, enlightening televisual package which viewers will want to watch and which will therefore help ratings and will, in the words of the BBC's charter, "inform, educate and entertain." At times we achieve all three in our proceedings in the House.
I pay a particular tribute, as other hon. Members have, to the Supervisor of Broadcasting, John Grist, and to Anthony Hall and the other people involved. Members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members who have had dealings with those gentlemen know that they are friendly, approachable and, above all, professional in their approach to the task.
I suppose that a slight pat on the back is due to the House of Commons for its wisdom in supporting the hon. Member for Chichester when he moved the original motion and for some of the side benefits that have accrued from televising. I would sum up the latter as being slightly smarter suits and slightly snappier speeches.
Other hon. Members expressed relief about the fact that the cameras have been here for the past six months. If one were to take a six-month slice of British politics since 1945, one would be hard pressed to find many more major dramatic events, ranging from a change of Prime Minister to the Gulf war, than we have had in the past six months.
The change of Prime Minister was a tremendous political and human drama, ranging from the resignation speech of the former deputy Prime Minister through to the outcome of the first ballot and then the marvellous debate on the Floor of the House after the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), announced her intention not to contest the second ballot. After the first ballot, the former Prime Minister was reminiscent of Gloria Swanson in "Sunset Boulevard." After the result of the second ballot the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was somewhat reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe because it transpired that Conservative Members did not, at the end of the day, prefer blondes.
Thank goodness all that drama is on tape. Future generations of school pupils and students will be able to see that living history enjoyed by hon. Members and the very few who were able to sit in the Press Gallery or in the Strangers' Gallery. Those events can be shared with future generations, and that is a tremendous tribute to the success of broadcasting.
I recall the afternoon when the former deputy Prime Minister made his resignation statement. I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester. Many people throughout the country were able to say that they realised just how politically significant that event was because they could see the expressions on the faces of the other hon. Members around him and the face of one hon. Member in particular who winced at the comments that were being made. That brought the luminosity of truth to bear on political proceedings. Following that, there was no way in which politicians of any persuasion could present a different conception of the events that took place. That is a tremendous plus.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member is right. However, that kind of issue is not at stake. The Select Committee's hearings at Thames Television revealed that for about £5 million topics other than selected news and general current affairs coverage could be broadcast. Other issues could be covered which are not so important to most people but which might be significant to a minority who would otherwise have to refer to Hansard and therefore lose much of the immediacy of what goes on here.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Thanet, North referred to the fishing incident. Although the 90-minute debate about that was not available throughout the north of Scotland where it was of tremendous interest, a substantial package was shown on Grampian Television's regional wrap-up programme "North Tonight". No doubt aspects of similar debates would be broadcast in the south-west or in Cornwall and in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The regional components of the BBC and ITN allow for such coverage. The BBC has given commendable attention to the work of the Select Committees and has allowed specific points to be focused upon. I do not dissent from the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). However, within the constraints available in the original scheduling, the broadcasters have done an extremely good job, given the scale of events in any 24-hour period in this building.
I want to make a few brief points about the report and the implications for the future. I support the view that we should move towards a dedicated channel. The hon. Member for Thanet, North was absolutely right. As we move towards such a channel, I hope that we will consider the OASIS and C-Span facilities which we saw in Ottawa and which are also used in Washington DC. Facilities for hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster would thereby be greatly improved in terms of the visual technology available in offices and elsewhere.
My second point relates to the rather vexed question of what is to become of the new control room and where it is to be located. I support the view expressed in the report that it should be within the Central Lobby Tower. I appreciate that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has expressed some anxiety about that and that it prefers the Millbank location to a location within the precincts of the Palace. Paragraph 61 of the report points out that there is much to be said for a secure on-site television interview facility inside the building—not just for the convenience of Members, but to prevent a recurrence of the sad events of recent times.
At the time of the change in the Tory party leadership, a media circus was in progress across the street on College green. Given the number of politicians who were trotting across the green to offer their opinions on that rolling news item over a period of about a fortnight, a blind terrorist with blanks who ran amok would have been hard pushed to fail to hit someone—probably a member of the Cabinet.
Similarly, special occasions such as the Queen's Speech and the Budget must now provide some of the best targets for terrorism in the world. Special prefabricated studios are now increasingly common on such occasions: broadcasters set them up so that they can use the Westminster backdrop, and they are illuminated in the evening.
Finally, I want to make a third-party point. In the Committee, I represent not only the Liberal Democrats but other "third parties" in the House with an interest in this matter. I shall not stray from the subject that, technically, we are discussing—the report—but I think that it would be inappropriate for me not to point out that the "third parties" in the House have traditionally complained about their lack of opportunities in comparison with the two parties that form the "usual channels" under our existing procedures. If television is a long overdue step towards opening up the House of Commons, I hope that it will also prove to be a welcome step in the direction of further full-scale parliamentary reform that will change our methods of operation completely.
The voices of the parliamentary prophets of doom have largely become siren, if not wholly silent—although I suspect that one voice on the Conservative Back Benches is not about to be silenced. Those voices that remain are, I think, discordant, for televising has now received the general acquiescence of the House. Given what has happened since the hon. Member for Chichester opened the original debate, many of the arguments against televising that were advanced then will begin to look as bizarre, absurd and unfathomable as the powerful and emotive arguments against votes for women that were voiced earlier in the century seem now. When we read the reports of those debates, we wonder how on earth the House of Commons could have been against votes for women. I think that future generations will find it equally incomprehensible that it took so long for us to introduce a measure that proved so welcome to both Members of Parliament and the public outside.
Although I share some reservations with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South—although perhaps in a rather more optimistic fashion than other hon. Members—I hope that the report will put us on a firm footing for the future.

Sir John Stokes: As someone who is in no way connected with the communications industry—and as somewhat of a reactionary, who can offer only limited support to the view of democracy—I rise to speak with some trepidation. However, I welcome the report, and congratulate all those involved on the work that they have done on so difficult and complicated a subject.
I do not wish to speak in detail about the various technical aspects of the report. My abiding interest lies with the effect that televising will have on our proceedings:


I am referring not just to the presence of the microphones, but to the effect on the character of the Chamber and on how it works. The House is very precious to all of us, and I am sure that we shall all do our best to ensure that neither television nor any other invention of the future harms us in any way.
I have read the amendment carefully and I regret that I cannot support it. I believe that it would lead to considerable expense, and to the appointment of many more staff at a time when the number of employees in the public sector is growing so much that it is becoming a burden on the rest of the nation. The least that we can do in making this experiment work is to contain costs, and not impose yet another charge on the long-suffering public.
For many years I was a fervid opponent of the broadcasting of our proceedings. I confess that I have now changed my opinion substantially. I feared that our proceedings would be trivialised, that the tendency of some hon. Members to play to the gallery would be accentuated and that behaviour in general would worsen. I am glad to say that, in the main, that has not happened.
Of course, the Chamber is still conscious all the time that its proceedings are or may be televised. I have noticed a tendency—especially among Opposition Members—to crowd behind the Dispatch Box to be sure of being in the picture. I hope that women Members will forgive me for adding that some of them tend not only to do that, but to wear their brightest clothes to ensure that they are seen. Those, however, are minor points; what matters is that televising our proceedings provides the news media with a valuable weapon—and I fear the news media and the harm they can do to the nation.
The media love confrontation and they love entertainment. The House, however, is about serious business, and it is by no means always confrontational. Certainly it is not usually as confrontational as it appears in the weekly quarter-hour broadcast of Prime Minister's Question Time. That regular slanging match does not do much for the House's reputation, and is rather untypical of our proceedings; it also gives a completely false picture of what political life is really about. A complex political situation cannot be summed up in one or two sentences. That was well recognised in the 19th century, when, for the first time, the popular press carried long reports of speeches by Gladstone and Disraeli—which were read avidly, line by line, by the mass of the population.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) pointed out that television broadcasts of our proceedings were often slotted into difficult hours when not many people were "looking in". That is because we are not show business here; we are serious business. That is the constant difficulty with television. Question Time shows potted politics, not real politics: real politics can be found in debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on matters of moment, not in a quick quip across the Benches.
As I said, the power of the media is already very great—some would say terrifyingly great—and is growing all the time. Scenes on television of, for instance, the relatives of hostages at the start of the Gulf war, and of the present suffering of the Kurds, have an immediate, powerful and moving effect on the mass of the population. The danger is that they may come to think that what they see on television news night after night is all that is happening in the world, or is the most important thing that is happening; and that may not necessarily be true. News

broadcasts on radio are better and, I believe, give a more balanced picture. Television is where the cameras happen to be.
Select Committees are much televised at present. There is a danger, however, that the televising of certain Committees, in which a witness is being closely examined, could turn out to be the kind of show trial that we have seen in the United States. I do not like that. The televising of our proceedings will need to be watched very carefully. It still has great potential dangers, although the worst has not yet happened.
I should prefer a single channel to broadcast all our proceedings from start to finish. What a different picture that would give. We do not just want snippets. The other day, I happened to watch the entire coverage of the enthronement of the new archbishop of Canterbury. What an immensely powerful and impressive broadcast that was—and what a nation we are. What a show it was, with all the nation represented in that wonderful old Christian building. It was not just a snippet; it was a full report—and how good it was. There is an increasing tendency to see snippets—little bits like the things that one has with one's drinks before a meal, but they should not be confused with a real meal.
I welcome the controls on reporting and on the use of cameras in the Chamber, especially when disturbances are taking place. Television can be a hydra-headed monster and unless we cut off some of its heads from time to time, we shall be in danger. I support firm parliamentary control.
I hope that my next remark will not be taken amiss. Let us not be too grand and important here. There has been much talk about enhancing democracy, but I do not know whether the public in England really want democracy to be enhanced. In my view, the public are not usually interested in politics; they prefer sport and other matters. Of course, they make a general judgment at general elections, but they usually leave the details to us. They may be concerned about certain vital matters, such as capital punishment. immigration or the tax on beer, but they are usually disappointed about those important matters. So let us not be too grandiose in talking about enhancing democracy.
What is our job here? It is to control the Executive; to approve the taxes; and to oversee, as best we can, how the money is spent, and not, I hope, to pass too many laws, which is what, unfortunately, all Governments have done in recent years. Of course, we must also support the defence of the realm, back the police and encourage religion. We must be modest and thankful to be here and not think too much of ourselves. We must all try to do our duty and not hope to become televison stars.

Mr. Tony Banks: That was a speech that I never expected to hear in this place and I am sure that at one stage the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) never thought that he would make such a speech. I would have bet my pension on the hon. Gentleman remaining one of the last opponents of the televising of Parliament in his normal exotic fashion—not in terms of dress, but in terms of his views because he is one of the last remaining genuine political cave-dwellers in this country. Nevertheless, I heard him say that he had changed his mind. I had thought that it would be a truly Pauline conversion, but in the end,


however, it was only half a miracle. The water was not turned into good red-blooded wine, only into cocoa. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he did because, like several other hon. Members who opposed the televising of Parliament, he has now realised that it has been the great success story that many of us said that it would be. It has been a success for television itself, but, far more importantly, it has been a success for this place. Although the hon. Gentleman portrays it very differently from me, I know that he cares about this place just as much as I do.
As hon. Members of all parties have said, televising has had a double effect. It has greatly extended the public's knowledge and awareness of our proceedings and it has greatly extended our activities in reaching a wider public, which is something that we are here to do. There is not much point in our discussing, quietly behind our hands and in anonymity, events that we then maintain are important to the country as a whole. If we take what we say at face value and believe that what we are doing is important to the country as a whole, the whole country must be able to hear and to watch what we are doing and what we decide in the public's name.
Contrary to all the fears that were expressed initially by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and others about the effect of televising on the reputation of Parliament, the House of Commons has been enhanced rather than reduced in the eyes of the electorate and our reputation now stands higher than it was before televising began. There have not been the rows and the scenes of hooliganism that the Jonahs were foretelling. No one has done a runner with the Mace since televising began—although it happened twice before. No one has attempted to pull off Mr. Speaker's wig in an attempt to get a bit of cheap publicity. There have been no streakers and we have had very little crowd violence. Indeed, behaviour in this place has improved since televising began. That is not because hon. Members are conscious of the cameras, but because behaviour in this place is fairly good in comparison with legislatures around the world. As I have said, the Jonahs have been confounded and we have a great success story on our hands.
Having said all that, however, the televising leaves a great deal to be desired. It is still the broadcast journalists who decide what parts of our proceedings will be broadcast—what they consider interesting, sexy or educative. We should not allow journalists—broadcast or otherwise, although broadcast journalists tend to be better than newspaper journalists—to act as a filter between what we do in this place and what the electorate outside is allowed to receive.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to a debate on Scottish fishing. The people of Newham, whom I represent, are not necessarily very interested in that, but I know that many of my constituents are interested in and greatly affected by the late night orders on social security, housing and transport. But the broadcast journalists do not regard those subjects as interesting. By that, they mean that those subjects are not interesting to the broadcast journalists themselves. We should not allow that state of affairs to continue.
The report's proposals are inadequate. I cannot accept the idea that only 250,000 people will be permitted to see

the parliamentary broadcasts and that that is somehow a major advance and that, perhaps, by the end of the decade 4·5 million people will be allowed to view. Those are optimistic figures. Let us face it, Sky and BSB came up with a lot of figures about the number of people that would be watching their channels by the end of each year and usually vastly under-performed against expectations. We have seen what happened to BSB—it could not maintain its audience—and we now know that Sky is experiencing problems. That is why we cannot rely on the figures that we have been quoted or expect to see them fulfilled.
I believe that all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge—my constant references to him must impress upon him the fact that I have still not got over his speech—are now prepared to accept, as the hon. Gentleman did, that parliamentary democracy has been enhanced. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not seem very interested in extending knowledge and awareness of democracy much beyond the House. Whether he likes it or not, more and more people are now more and more interested in and aware of what we are doing. That must be good for us and for parliamentary democracy.
If we agree that the televising of Parliament has been a success for parliamentary democracy, why cannot we go further? I listened to what the Leader of the House said about the provision of a dedicated channel being a matter not of technology but of cash. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) then said that it was not a matter of cash—although he was interested in the cash aspect—but a matter of technology. I also listened to the hon. Member for Thanet, North, who knows far more about these technical matters than either myself or most hon. Members, and wanted to push him on why it is not possible to have a terrestrial channel. What would be the cost of re-engineering? The frequencies are allocated by the Home Office and, constitutionally, the Home Office and the Home Secretary are answerable to the House. As we can vote on such matters, can we not vote in the money and ensure that the technology is available?

Mr. Gale: The short answer is, practically, no. A terrestrial channel is not available—or rather, although nothing is impossible, it would be difficult to provide. If one is prepared to take entertainment away from a large number of people, it would be possible to make a channel available, but the only practical way in which we can have a dedicated channel is by direct broadcast by satellite and by cable.

Mr. Banks: I would like more information from the hon. Gentleman. We cannot deal with the matter in this debate but perhaps we could discuss it outside. He did not rule out the possibility of an extra channel. Would it be possible to re-engineer so that we need not deprive people of their entertainment on Channel 3 or a potential Channel 5? Is there no way in which one could squeeze in another terrestrial channel? If the hon. Gentleman says that it is technically impossible, I will accept that. However, if he says that it could be done at a price, we come back to the argument of what is the price and the value of democracy. It is a Wildean approach to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Often one feels that that is the attitude of the Government. If it is a matter of cost, we


must be prepared to meet that cost. The value of democracy is infinite in those terms. If we desire the ends, we must will the means.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not believe that the House would want to say that infinite costs could be borne. I hesitate to refer to the Richard Dunn question, which also came up in Committee. Some broadcasters would have preferred the Committee, and by extension the House, to ask for proposals for the widest possible Mace-to-Mace coverage. That point does not seem to have been fully grasped. We have tended to deal with the cost element and say that there is no extra cost other than that of the control room—I exaggerate slightly. Instead, we should have asked what proposals commercial companies, the BBC or some new person could make at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Banks: Again, this is not the way to exchange information on the subject. I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. My feeling is that we should be prepared to bear whatever cost is necessary. We are talking about something that is perhaps beyond cost. We are talking about the value of democracy to us in Britain. If we have said that televising the House has enhanced democracy and reinforced the democratic process, we must take the logic further and take what we have done until now to some logical conclusion. Of course, we want Mace-to-Mace or gavel-to-gavel broadcasting. We want to allow the people of Britain to turn on and tune in to the subjects in which they are interested. They should not be restricted to the subjects which the broadcasting journalists say that the people should receive because the journalists have decided that those are the interesting subjects on today's menu. To me that means that we have gone so far, but there is an awful lot further to go.
I hope that the Committee will continue to keep the matter in mind and that at some point it will come to the conclusion that the money should be spent. No one can disregard other people's money. We are talking about not our money but that of the taxpayers. I hope that the Committee will say that the value of democracy is such that the House is prepared to will the means to meet the end of furthering democracy in Britain.

Mr. David Harris: I must confess that IF, too, am one of the Members who changed their mind on this issue. However, my conversion was much earlier and more absolute and complete than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). When I came to the House eight years ago and had my first opportunity to vote on the basic issue of televising, I voted against. I was taken to task mightily by my erstwhile colleagues in the parliamentary Press Gallery for having done so. It was not as a result of their criticism that when we came to the second vote in my parliamentary lifetime I voted for televising. I did so because I was absolutely convinced that the time was right to make the change. As many hon. Members have said, events since then have proved that we took the right decision in 1989. The attendance in the House for this debate is proof that we took the right decision.
The controversy has gone completely out of the main issue. We are now arguing about the details for the future. That has aroused considerable differences of opinion among the hon. Members attending this debate, as it did

among those of us who served on the Select Committee on Broadcasting. But those differences of opinion are pretty small beer compared with the main issue and the controversy which raged at the time of the two votes about which I have spoken. We all remember that the Chamber was absolutely packed. People on both sides of the argument felt passionately that the parliamentary world would either come to an end or be transformed once the cameras arrived. As we all know, as is so often the case, the truth was somewhere between those two extremes. Life has gone on.
The tributes paid earlier, especially by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), to the broadcasters were right and proper. It was the way in which the broadcasters handled the televising of the House that made a success of it. The tributes paid to the Supervisor of Broadcasting were also appropriate. He has played a quiet, silent part behind the scenes which, again, has contributed mightily to the success of not only the experiment—which was the difficult part—but the permanent televising of the House.
I wish to deal with the items of controversy tonight. I am unashamedly in favour of keeping the status quo. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) went somewhat over the top. As he did in Committee, he said that the report was a shambles and the arrangements were a shambles. He said that the present arrangements would not stand the test of time. With great respect, the arrangements have stood the test of time since they were introduced. The experiment began in November 1989. The remarkable thing is that, both as a member of the Committee and in my previous incarnation as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the previous Leader of the House, I have heard no complaints about how the system has worked. Therefore, I am wary about overturning the system and introducing different arrangements.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that he opposed the first report of the Committee. He will correct me if I am wrong. He drew up a minority report. So he was not quite right when he gave the impression in his speech tonight that the Committee had performed splendidly until now but had suddenly gone wrong and off the tracks. He will be honest enough to admit that he has been a consistent critic of the way in which the Committee has gone about its work. In saying that, I am praising my hon. Friend: he has been consistent. He has held firmly to his sincerely held view, which is that the House of Commons should go into the commercial world and exploit the opportunity to televise the House. He believes that we should do deals with various people and obtain a return on the right to televise the House. He believes that that will open the way to greater television. That is one view.
As I said in Committee on several occasions, my view, which is counter to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, is that if there is any body of people less able to run a commercial activity it is this House of Commons.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about Hansard?

Mr. Harris: That is a false analogy. People have given the impression that Hansard is freely available to everyone.
It is freely available, provided that one lives near an HMSO shop or is prepared to pay the postage and that one is prepared to pay for a copy of Hansard.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman would not run anything commercially then?

Mr. Harris: I shall come to that in a moment. I have in my hand a copy of the daily edition of Hansard. The price is £6. I confess that I was not aware of the price of Hansard. Members of Parliament go to the Vote Office and get it at no charge, and probably send copies to constituents who ask for them. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] If someone has a particular interest, it is only right that he should get a copy. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats do this on a greater scale than Conservatives do. However, I shall put that issue aside. The Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong when I say that, even at a price of £6 per copy, Hansard is not run at a profit, or even at break-even level. Indeed, it is run with a thumping great subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North has argued with absolute consistency that televising the House represents a great commercial asset that we should exploit by making it readily available, through satellites, to more people. That is my hon. Friend's basic approach. My point is simply that we are not equipped to do that.

Mr. Gale: I know that my hon. Friend has no desire to misrepresent my views. I have said consistently that there are two ways forward. One of them is by unit of the House and subsidy. That would be a perfectly honourable course which some people would prefer. My preferred option is that we should not seek to run the system ourselves—which is what my hon. Friend suggests I have been saying—but should offer the franchise to somebody else who does want to run it.

Mr. Harris: That is what my hon. Friend has always said, but he wants us to enter into various commercial deals. He goes further by saying that, to start, we might have to do pump-priming. The system that we have has worked very well. So far as the costs of the House are concerned, we have limited liability.
Let me address the arguments of both the hon. Member for The Wrekin and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North. It is absolutely certain that the cost of running a service as a unit of the House would be far greater than the cost of the present system. All those manning the television cameras, directing and doing everything else would be employees and would have to be paid throughout the year.

Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman please develop his comparison with Hansard, and will he try to be consistent? It takes about £2·5 million of public money every year to produce Hansard. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that an electronic Hansard should not be funded publicly, even though it would cost far less? What is the fundamental difference between the two? If there should be commercial exploitation of the electronic Hansard, why does the hon. Gentleman think that there should not be commercial exploitation of the written Hansard? I assume that that is what he means.

Mr. Harris: Why get involved with subsidies if subsidies are not needed? The hon. Gentleman would like us to use under subsidy a satellite system which, apparently, is available to United Artists. That would not be necessary if United Artists were to go ahead and provided exactly the same service. I am against providing subsidies if they are not needed, and I believe that in this case a subsidy is unnecessary. Similarly, the present system is much cheaper than a House unit would be. Why should a system that has worked perfectly satisfactorily be disturbed? I believe that it will continue to work perfectly satisfactorily.
On the question of a dedicated channel, there has been misrepresentation, not only of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his opening remarks but also of the Committee's report. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North engaged in some rubbishing. He implied that we were going down the United Artists route—as if the matter were set in concrete. Let me remind my hon. Friend of what the report says:
By the same token, we believe that the United Artists scheme, whilst deserving support, should not be regarded as the last word nor as excluding or pre-empting any other proposals for a dedicated channel which may come forward in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made the same point at the beginning of this debate.
This House has taken very wise decisions about the televising of its proceedings. We are going forward in a perfectly sensible way, which need not alarm people, as it has worked very satisfactorily in the past. I thoroughly endorse the proposals of the Committee, and I hope that the proposed amendment to the motion will be rejected.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I want to begin by paying a particular tribute to the people who helped the Select Committee in its work. The Supervisor of Broadcasting, Mr. John Grist, brought his lifelong broadcasting and television experience to our aid, and gave us most skilful and sensitive advice throughout our deliberations, which lasted three years. I pay tribute also to the people who direct the programmes, as well as those who are in charge of the technical facilities. In addition, our thanks are due to the various Clerks of the House for their work in the preparation of this and other reports. They listened to our sometimes slightly rambling views and, in the end, distilled them into what looked like extremely wise words. Thus, we have a very readable report.
From the beginning of the discussion about the televising of the proceedings of this House, my view has been one of some scepticism. I have always felt that the proceedings of the House could be transmitted meaningfully to the outside world only by way of a dedicated channel. I am one of those who were slightly bothered and cautious—in some ways, alarmed—about the way in which, in the early days, some reports might come out. I did not take the sensational view that only the most ludicrous and frothy parts of the proceedings would be broadcast, but I did believe that the public would not often see the true depth of discussion, either in the Chamber or in Standing and Select Committees.
Over a period, the broadcasters have done an excellent job. As a London Member, I have one criticism, which may well be shared by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). There is not sufficient coverage,


in London regional programmes, of work relating to the metropolis. The local coverage in other regions is rather better. Of course, in London, television is very much about national events.
We should still aim single-mindedly at an "electronic Hansard"—that is the expression that has been used, and it sums up the idea of dedicated coverage, gavel to gavel, for the benefit of the British public, whatever region they live in. People would not then have to travel to London to see what we are doing or queue to join the rather select few who get into the Strangers' Gallery. Our ultimate aim should be coverage that would enable sombody sitting at home to follow his own special interests. Whether they be crofters in the north of Scotland, workers in industrial centres, fishermen living on the coast, schoolchildren or people employed in the financial centres, everyone should be able to watch the proceedings of the House on television.
We should have a dedicated channel, and the nub of our debate is how to go about it. The obvious suggestion may seem that we should choose a terrestrial channel, because at present that is how most of the population receive television. But., technically, terrestrial broadcasting is not the method that is ultimately likely to reach the most people. In some remote areas of Scotland and Wales, and in parts of the south-west, television signals have to be re-broadcast for the benefit of people in the most inaccessible places. Ultimately, the best method of transmission will be by satellite.
The Committee has decided that a halfway stage—several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that this is only a halfway stage—would be to invite a cable transmission company to broadcast the signal. We certainly invite further investigation of how we can best broadcast to the widest spread of people, and I hope that the House, the Select Committee, and indeed the Government, will continue to be prepared to consider a public subsidy for a satellite signal.
I do not suggest that we go to enormous expense which was unacceptable to the Treasury and the taxpayer. The cost of acquiring a satellite dish is still, I gather from newspaper advertisements, about £200. Although people can rent a facility if they wish, we cannot yet justify a claim that very many people wish to receive a satellite signal. Within two or three years, however, satellite broadcasting will have reached such a stage that the House, the Government and the Treasury should consider paying for a signal to be transmitted by satellite.
I intend to support the report, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board what I have said. I believe that I am in tune with the views of many of my hon. Friends and of many members of the public.
I do not think that we need a unit of the House to carry out the work. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that the present arrangements are satisfactory. We have the expertise of the permanent members of staff—the Supervisor of Broadcasting and those who advise him. I am not convinced that we are equipped to recruit other people such as camera men and technicians. In all honesty, the sort of work that they have to do is not the most inspiring form of work imaginable for a television camera man, and the sort of staff that we now get through a contract with an outside company would not be attracted by it. The

present quality of work is very high, and I hope that, by continuing the present method of contracting, we can ensure that that is maintained.
Finally, we have to decide on the control room. That is the "parish pump" item in the report, on which several hon. Members have already commented. I wish to put on record my view that the area above Central Lobby is the most obvious place for the control room. We must remember that we are shortly to enter a joint arrangement with the other place. It is logical that the control room for transmitting the signal from both Houses of Parliament should be in the building, and where could be more logical than at the central point between the two Chambers? Technicians there would easily be able to keep in touch with us, and there would be secure interview rooms available for Members of both Houses. There is no doubt where the control room should be.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make an abbreviated speech as I often appear to nowadays, and shall cut out some of the tributes that I planned to pay. However, I still pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to the members of the Select Committee on Broadcasting &c. and to those who serve that Committee. Its report is one of the better reports in terms of canvassing the issues, but I am sorry to have to say that I disagree with it in one respect. For financial reasons, we seem to have gone for a short-term decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) serves with distinction as chairman of the Conservative media committee. The fourth appendix to the report of that committee spells out the options more clearly. It says, rightly, that the present experiment should be continued, and that people should be asked to come forward with proposals, which could include public subsidy, on how the continuous televising of Parliament can be made available to many more people much earlier.
It is not satisfactory to say that, for the sake of £3 million, Parliament should be broadcast on cable rather than by satellite. The report is right to point out the problems involved in using the squarial system—everyone knows that that is not likely to be available for very long.
I shall ask a technical question which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may not wish to answer immediately. The Select Committee's recommendations refer to United Artists "or any other" group willing to send out the continuous signal. Does that "or" also mean "and"? Might there be exclusivity for United Artists if it pursues its proposal? So long as it is an "and" issue, that will remove one of those problems. There remains only the issue of whether the House could say to an outside broadcaster, "If we were willing to put more money in, how much faster could you make the system available, at least during the next few years?".
My final point will not be the most serious one that I have ever made in Parliament: why do not we set up a Dr. David Reid society? He was the mechanical-electrical engineer who produced the ventilator system that did not work and was sacked in 1852. I presume that he reported to a Select Committee, which shows that Select Committees can make mistakes. Whatever decision the House makes this evening, we should be prepared to see whether we are holding back from getting the full benefit from the work of the Committee that produced the report.
Now that it has been discovered that there are 25 rooms above Mr. Speaker's house, perhaps we can use those instead of destroying that wide, open space that I look forward to seeing soon.

Mr. MacGregor: In the short time available, I shall touch on some of the points that have been raised in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), I was at first opposed to televising Parliament, for three reasons. I believed—

Mr. Tony Banks: Another miracle.

Mr. MacGregor: As a former conjurer, I know about miracles, but this was not one. I believed that the House of Commons was a place of work and that there was a danger of distorting its image and making it seem as though it was a place of entertainment. I thought that it would encourage Members to play to the galleries. Above all, I was concerned, as were many other hon. Members and as has been expressed in the debate, that much of the real work of the House, which takes place in Standing and Select Committees, would be neglected if only the Chamber were televised, thus distorting the view of the House's proceedings. However, I came round to voting for the televising of our proceedings in the debate when it was decided to do so. That was partly because I thought that it would improve democratic communication—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that it has done so—and partly because I thought that it might go some way towards stopping some of the rowdy behaviour in the House.
Having observed the public's reaction to the televising of Parliament, I believe that it has been a healthy and worth while change. I am always impressed, when I go around my constituency and others, by how often people say that they have listened to debates and taken on board matters that they would not otherwise have thought about.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, however, that there is still a danger in choosing to televise the sensational moments in the House, which are untypical of this place, and to highlight them in news bulletins. We still face that problem. I have discovered that I also face a personal problem with the televising of Parliament because, sitting where I do, sometimes for a long time, without contributing to the debate and sometimes having been up for most of the night, I am tempted to yawn and, as sod's law applies, that is often the very moment when I appear on the screen. I have also realised that some viewers are good lip-readers. In the past, members of the Government talked about confidential matters that we had been unable to discuss outside the Chamber. So if I appear to be yawning, I am simply covering my mouth so that lip-readers cannot see what I am saying.
I agree that the televising of Parliament is worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said that he was satisfied with the parliamentary control over broadcasting. The fact that nobody has criticised that aspect in the debate shows that the House is now satisfied with the mechanisms of control.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—I am sorry that I missed his speech, but I was

taking part in a television broadcast—talked about the importance of regional coverage, particularly in Northern Ireland and Wales. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—

Mr. Kennedy: Skye with an "e".

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, as a Scot, I understand that.
It is an important part of broadcasting our proceedings and partly answers the argument about a dedicated channel and the concern of some hon. Members to have our proceedings broadcast throughout the country, including in rural areas. I find that the attention given to regional matters on regional television is quite extensive and very important. Those of us who come from rural and regional areas believe that that aspect is important.

Mr. Kennedy: And Scotland.

Mr. MacGregor: Scotland is not the only place that the House should consider; the argument applies also to the regions of England.
It is noticeable that everyone who has spoken about the control room has argued that it should be in the House above Central Lobby. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), I believe that, although there is more technical work to be done, his worry about the impact on that area is exaggerated. We would not wish to go ahead unless we were satisfied that the space could be used without a detrimental effect. Everyone who has spoken on the subject feels that the control room is an important part of the arrangement because it does not concern the other broadcasters—the normal broadcasters and channels—but the House's own broadcasting operation.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also mentioned security. I very much agree with him about such matters as I am often in the vulnerable position of being interviewed on the green outside. For the first time today, I have been to 4 Millbank to participate in a broadcast and was impressed by the space and lavishness there. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, for security reasons, we could use the space above Central Lobby for interviews with other broadcasters. Perhaps in due course we can implement some of those suggestions as it will be advantageous in terms of access and security. However, we cannot discuss that today as the debate concerns only the operation for broadcasting Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has a much greater technical knowledge than I could possibly have about dedicated channels and I listened with interest to his remarks. The House accepted his technical expertise when he said that if we were to do anything other than broadcast by satellite or cable, we would have to remove a broader channel, which would include entertainment. I doubt whether the House would be happy with that. However much we want greater democratic communication and more people able to watch a dedicated channel, we must recognise that parliamentary proceedings will always be a minority interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who made an excellent speech, said that if we are to have a dedicated channel we are not excluding other arrangements but talking about progress. We are moving towards a dedicated channel and, if that can be achieved with United Artists, I hope that it will move well beyond an audience of 260,000. My hon. Friend the Member for


St. Ives quoted paragraph 122 of the Select Committee's report. Paragraph 124 is important to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. It says:
We therefore propose to monitor closely the progress and performance of the United Artists scheme. In particular, we intend to keep under review the position regarding the potential number of viewers with access to a dedicated channel, especially in the context of the availability of additional channels on the Astra 1C satellite in two or three years' time.
When that is added to the recommendation that we made in paragraph 122, it shows that we are embarking on the dedicated channel approach but are not excluding other proposals in due course, as technical possibilities arise or for other reasons.
Finally, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to the arrangements as a totally unnecessary and complicated managerial structure—a botched compromise. Frankly, it is not. Several of my hon. Friends have already said that it has worked extremely well during its operation. It is not a complicated structure to understand—it involves all those connected with parliamentary broadcasting.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to financial control and I believe that our arrangement is an important aid to that. When it comes to sharing costs, the broadcasters want to know that the way in which we have structured our part of the operation ensures good control over costs. It is important to have a cost-effective scheme. The arrangement to go out to tender ensures that we have such a competitive scheme, which is the best way to exercise control over costs. There is no problem about the overall audit and financial control.
The hon. Gentleman has displayed his instincts on other matters as well as broadcasting with his desire to set up a public sector organisation, totally funded by the taxpayer. Our approach of going out to tender ensures a competitive element in the service, a more flexible system and the most cost-effective way in which to achieve that service. It also limits the cost to the taxpayer by obtaining contributions from the broadcasters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and others that that is the sensible way in which to proceed.
I was struck—

It being Seven o'clock, Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Order [29 April] to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 155.

Division No. 134]
[7 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eadie, Alexander


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronald


Bellotti, David
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foulkes, George


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Dobson, Frank
Grocott, Bruce


Doran, Frank
Hain, Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hardy, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Harman, Ms Harriet





Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Salmond, Alex


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Strang, Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McNamara, Kevin
Trimble, David


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Amess, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Arbuthnot, James
Hannam, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Batiste, Spencer
Harris, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Hill, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Benyon, W.
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Irvine, Michael


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jackson, Robert


Bright, Graham
Jessel, Toby


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Key, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Kilfedder, James


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cash, William
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chope, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Couchman, James
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maples, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mates, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Hon Francis


Eggar, Tim
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Emery, Sir Peter
Miller, Sir Hal


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Dame Janet
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forman, Nigel
Needham, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Norris, Steve


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Green way, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Portillo, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hague, William
Redwood, John






Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trippier, David


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thorne, Neil

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &amp;c., in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 11).

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Sir Antony Buck: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the fact that we are having this debate. I hope that it will become a regular feature of each Parliament. We are debating the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is appropriate, therefore, that Parliament should scrutinise fairly regularly both his work and that of the Health Service Commissioners. Moreover, while he remains within our jurisdiction, we should also scrutinise fairly regularly the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland. All these matters are relevant to the debate.
We shall be considering in the debate what has come to be referred to as the work of the ombudsman. There is no difficulty about that person being referred to as the ombudsman. At one stage it was suggested by someone, who had better be nameless, that we should not be sexist—that we should refer to the "ombudsperson". I did not take kindly to that idea. The person who was in situ as ombudsman at that time was Lady Serota, a lady for whom I have the greatest admiration. I telephoned her and we talked about this. I suggested to her that the title should perhaps be ombudsperson. Her reaction was not couched in parliamentary language. She told me, in effect, "Don't be silly, Tony", but she used more abrupt terms than that. Therefore, we are entitled to continue to refer to the "ombudsman".
This is an interesting example of Britain taking over another country's democratic institution and adapting it for our own purposes so that we can provide a more efficient service for those whom we have the privilege to represent. The roots of the ombudsman go right back to Scandinavia. The original ombudsman was the people's man who spoke up at the court of the Vasa kings. He had a pretty tough and rugged role to play. People such as Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus were very tough people indeed. The ombudsman had a perilous life in those early times.
The first constitutionalised ombudsman under the Swedish system was Mannerheim—a Finn and a relation of the great Marshal Mannerheim who so courageously led his nation against the assaults of the Russians. He was a great man.
The work of the ombudsman is relevant, as is the role of the Select Committee, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman. I was grateful, some while ago now when there was a change of Government, that, although a strong case could have been made that the post which I hold should be held by an Opposition Member, there was agreement on both sides that I should continue in office. I am very grateful for that because, as I think hon. Members who serve on the Committee will agree, the work that we do is conducted on a completely non-party political basis. Witnesses would have difficulty in deciding which of us were Tories, socialists, Liberal Democrats, or members of any other party.
The ombudsman system is an interesting example of our adopting the democratic institution of another


country and adapting it for our own ends in order o make our system more effective and more able to react to the genuine needs of our constituents.
It is important to ensure that democracy remains relatively efficient. If it does not do so, the electors are likely to turn, as a matter of expediency, to the extreme right or the extreme left. It was because democracy became so hopelessly incompetent that it failed in the cradle of democracy—Greece. There the Greek Government, under Mr. Canalopoulos—a man of great academic distinction—did not thrive. In political terms, he did not know his way round. I had the opportunity of meeting him on one occasion and found him to be a charming man. We are glad that democracy has once again been restored to that country, it having failed because the democratic system became so incompetent. Our system is effective. Democracy is a crazy system until one considers the alternatives, but it is important for us to ensure that our democratic system remains relatively efficient and reactive to those whom we have the privilege of representing.
It was with that in mind that the ombudsman system was introduced to this country. Among those who claim credit for it are Justice and the Society for Individual Freedom, organisations with different political orientations. The Government published a White Paper, Cmnd. 2767, which was followed by the introduction of the legislation which became the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. That was a long time ago. I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill.
Fears were expressed about the creation of an ombudsman. It was suggested by members of my party and of the Labour party that it might derogate from the role of the Member of Parliament. That has not happened. It was emphasised from the beginning that what was being provided was an additional bolt in the armoury of the Member of Parliament to help him the better to look after the legitimate interests of his constituents.
Since the establishment of the office of ombudsman in 1967, I have served on the Select Committee, save for the period when I was a Minister. The office of ombudsman came into being on 1 April 1967. There was comment about the fact that that was April fools' day but there was no significance in that. We are debating the subject on I May, Red Army day; again I do not think that there is any significance in the date, but there has been comment about it on the fringes of the press.
The first person to take up the office of ombudsman was Sir Edmund Compton. All who have been concerned with the affairs of the parliamentary commissioner agree that he set a very high standard which has been fully maintained by his successors. They have all been people of high calibre and great competence. The present ombudsman, Mr. Reid, carries on the high tradition and standards of his predecessors.
It was recommended by our Committee that the ombudsman should not always be an ex-civil servant. The Government of the day over-reacted and said that the next one would not be a civil servant. In the main the ombudsman has been an ex-civil servant. That does not matter, but occasionally to have someone who is not an ex-civil servant ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. In fact, the former civil servants who have held the position and those who work in the office have been the harshest critics of their own profession.
The ombudsman system has been a success. The distinguishing feature of our system is the MP filter. A report 10 years after the establishment of the office emphasised that access to the ombudsman is a bolt in the armoury of a Member of Parliament. An interesting statistic which emerged from that investigation was that no fewer than 10,000 cases a year are taken up by Members of Parliament with Government Departments and agencies. No doubt the number is even greater now.
When a former Israeli ombudsman, Mr. Nebenzal, the doyen of ombudsmen, was giving evidence before us, he said that according to our system every hon. Member is an ombudsman. That is right. It is important that we continue so to be regarded. The parliamentary involvement distinguishes our system from those in other countries. Some academics have questioned the MP filter, but we should emphasise that our ombudsman is a parliamentary commissioner. It is right that he should adjudicate on abuses about which our constituents complain from time to time.
For the benefit of those outside the House who may not be as well versed as my colleagues, perhaps I should say how the system works. Like other hon. Members, I have regular surgeries in my constituency. A typical case will be that of a pensioner who thinks that he is not getting as much pension as his chum down the road. He goes along to the local pensions office where a clerk—no doubt a very nice person, but who may be having a difficult morning—does not explain the matter properly. The pensioner goes away and says, "I will go and see old Buck." He comes to my advice bureau, but probably I will not know the answer. I am like the original matches man. Like Lord Randolph Churchill, every time I see a decimal point I think of those damned dots.
If I cannot solve the problem, I take it up with the local office where it is solved in 90 per cent. of the cases. If I can understand the explanation, so will my constituent. From time to time, although rarely, the local office has made a mess of it and I am not satisfied with the result. In those cases I refer the matter to the ombudsman who goes through the books and checks every detail. He may ask why it took three weeks for an office to reply to a simple inquiry, why a person was wrongly categorised, and so forth. When he has sorted out the problem, the matter is referred back to the Member of Parliament.
The ombudsman has two aims: first, to ensure that procedures are tightened up so that there is a minimum chance of repetition; and, secondly, to ensure that there is redress for the complainant where that is appropriate. Therefore, the ombudsman has had a considerable sharpening-up effect on the whole Whitehall process and on the health service.
Over the years some of my colleagues have suggested that it is a bit much to drag down to London the boss of a regional health authority, the chief medical officer and so on. I do not agree. I think that it is salutary for the heads of Government Departments or for the holders of principal offices in the health service to have to answer to the Select Committee for things that have gone wrong. It is right that they should be subjected to the robust questioning of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and of the rest of us on the Select Committee.
On the whole, it has been a success story. The parliamentary role distinguishes our system from others throughout the world. There are ombudsmen in all parts of the Commonwealth. One could say that it has been a


growth industry in Commonwealth countries. There is an ombudsman in every state in Australia—they also have federal and military ombudsmen. In Canada there are ombudsmen in every province. An ombudsman in Alberta obviously felt that ombudsmen's rule was okay, which in my view was a little over the top as Members of Parliament are jealous of their position as champions of the people.
I believe that we should retain the original system whereby the parliamentary commissioner enables Members of Parliament to provide a better service to those we have the privilege of representing. The parliamentary role distinguishes our ombudsmen from those in other parts of the world.
The work load of the parliamentary commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner has increased steadily but not dramatically. It is cyclic. Immediately after an election the work load increases because we have all been campaigning on doorsteps and have had even more contact with our constituents than usual. Although the work reaches a peak soon after an election, it has grown steadily over the years.
We have to consider for how long one man or woman is able to be both the parliamentary commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner. At present our hardworking commissioner scrutinises every file that reaches his office. That is important as it enables him to remain in close touch with what is happening in his office. There are advantages in having both offices under the same roof from the point of view of staffing and the expertise that crosses the divide between the two roles, but I am doubtful whether the ombudsman will retain that schizophrenic role as both parliamentary commissioner and Health Service Commissioner. Mr. Reid who does such a splendid job and has such a good staff may well be the last ombudsman to hold both positions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for attending the debate. It is entirely appropriate that he should be here and I should be grateful for his comments on that.
In the past there have been difficulties concerning clinical judgment. That is a difficult matter. However, from time to time, distinguished medical practitioners have pushed their luck as to what is clinical judgment. Hon. Members may recall a case involving a lady in her nineties. She was transferred from one hospital to another at midnight or even later on a frosty night and, not surprisingly, she caught a cold and died. The medical practitioners had the nerve to suggest that it was a matter of clinical judgment whether it was appropriate for a lady of great antiquity to be transferred from one hospital to another at the dead of night when, had they but known it, there was a room available for her in the first hospital.
Clinical judgment does not come under our wing, but what is clinical judgment can be fairly broadly interpreted. Any medical man who tried to suggest that a case such as the one I have just adumbrated was a matter of clinical judgment would get short shrift from the present Health Service Commissioner. I would be grateful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the complaints procedure in the health service.
The Select Committee recommended that matters on the fringe of clinical judgment should be dealt with by the commissioner assisted by two assessors in the same way as the Admiralty division uses assessors. If a case involved

the possibility of maladministration in obstetrics or gynaecology, the commissioner would sit with an adviser from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. A second opinion procedure for dealing with complaints in the health service has been introduced and I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend, if not now then in writing, whether it is still regarded as working unsatisfactorily. I still take the view that it would be appropriate for matters involving some degree of clinical judgment but which are on the fringe should be dealt with by the commissioner, assisted by proper advisers from the appropriate medical discipline.
The Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration also comes within our purview. I should like to pay tribute to the recently retired Northern Ireland commissioner, Dr. Maurice Hayes, who did a most excellent job in circumstances of greater difficulty than those on what is usually described as the mainland. He did a superb job. The Select Committee thought it appropriate not to be pompous and continually drag him over here, so we visited Northern Ireland on several occasions. It was great fun for us to have meetings at Stormont, and we are grateful for the lavish hospitality provided by both the ombudsman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Ashfield nodding in agreement. I commend the work of Dr. Hayes and wish Mrs. McIvor, who has taken over from him, the best of good fortune. Dr. Hayes will be a difficult act to follow, but those of us who have met Mrs. McIvor have little doubt of her competence and ability to be a worthy successor to Dr. Hayes.
Publicity greatly concerns the commissioners here and in Northern Ireland. It is important that the work of the commissioners should be better known. The Central Office of Information has issued a series of pamphlets and there is also a video on the workings of the committee of the ombudsman and of the Select Committee of which I am Chairman. The video on the Select Committee of which I am Chairman makes the Chairman look exactly like Captain Mainwaring. The video is used in technical and educational institutes. A distinguished lady named Mrs. Whitehouse lives in my constituency, so I have to be sensitive about what I say about videos. It is a completely wholesome video and is a good example of the way in which we want to get the work of the ombudsman better known. The present parliamentary commissioner and the commissioner in Northern Ireland are anxious that their work be better known than it is. Those of us on the Select Committee agree with that. Opposition Members are nodding in agreement, so we have all-party agreement. Most of our work is not carried out on a party-political basis. I am glad of that; long may it continue.
The ombudsman story is one of limited success. Over the years we have brought into being an institution which enables us as Members of Parliament to give our constituents a better service. That is what it is all about. It is important that we provide a proper service to our constituents and that we make sure that our democratic system remains moderately effective. If we do not do so, people will be in danger of turning to the expediencies of the extreme left or of the extreme right. While there are robust hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ashfield and some of my hon. Friends, that is a remote possibility. One of the barriers against anything unpleasant happening to our democracy is the existence of a healthy ombudsman system. I have considered only the


parliamentary commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner, but the same applies to the local government service, which does not come under the direct purview of the Select Committee.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition for allowing the debate to take place and to hon. Members for listening to me with such care and attention.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for the way that he has introduced the debate. He has made clear the broad range of work with which the ombudsman deals, and I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in his thanks to Mr. Reid and his staff for the work that they have done.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have referred a number of cases to the ombudsman, particularly on social security matters. The cases have always been investigated thoroughly and to a high standard, and the conclusions have been fair and lucid. It is notable not only that the investigations satisfy my concerns that everything should be considered in the greatest detail, but that, by and large, the reports are not full of gobbledegook and I am able to send them to my constituents confident in the knowledge that they will be able to understand why the determination has been reached.
I welcome the opportunity for this debate, and congratulate the Select Committee on its proposal that the ombudsman's work should be debated regularly. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak because of the wide range of points involved, but I shall focus on the work of the ombudsman in the health service.
It is surpising that there are so few complaints about the health sevice to the ombudsman. In the annual report for 1989–90, the ombudsman recorded 794 complaints about the health service. In that year, in England alone, the health service dealt with over 7,477,000 in-patients. There are a number of reasons for the low level of complaints. First, by and large, people support the health service and there is not a culture of complaining about it. Too often, people tend to think that, although it did not go right for them and that there was something wrong, they will not complain because the NHS is a wonderful institution. It is a pity that there is not a culture of complaining because the organisation could learn and grow by examining mistakes and looking at where things go wrong.
The second reason for the low level of complaint is that people do not know who to complain to. They do not know whether they should complain to the same person whether the case involves their general practitioner, the receptionist, the hospital or the nurse. People do not know where to find that information.
Thirdly, people do not complain because they do not know what they can complain about. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North touched upon the difficult distinctions between clerical and administrative errors—something that has gone wrong because of a shortage of resources and just one of those things. Such distinctions make investigations in the health service more difficult than they are in some other Departments.
A significant number of complaints mentioned in the annual report showed that underfunding played a part in the problem. Paragraph 34 entitled "Charges for treatment" states:

Sometimes patients write to me alleging that they have had to pay for private care out of anxiety after a long time on a NHS waiting list.
If everyone who suffered pain and anxiety from being on a waiting list complained to the ombudsman, he would have an extremely full postbag.
Another source of complaint related to resources derives from discharge arrangements. In probably one of the understatements of the year, paragraph 18 states:
Pressure on beds means that hospital doctors do not usually want to keep patients in hospital longer than is really necessary".
The truth is that sometimes there is so much pressure on beds that the administrative arrangements which should be in place to deal with the care of patients on discharge go by the board. The shortage of resources does not make that acceptable, but it gives us an insight into why it happens.

Mr. Michael Lord: The hon. Lady opened her remarks by saying she was surprised how few complaints there were, given the millions of cases treated by the national health service. That is good news. She also heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) say that this is not normally a party political matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will not turn this rare opportunity to debate these matters into a party political debate.

Ms. Harman: I am not seeking to do that. Since a Minister from the Department of Health is present, I am seeking to raise some issues that were mentioned in the Health Service Commissioner's annual report. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) has read the annual report—

Mr. Lord: Yes.

Ms. Harman: Then he will see that the issues that I have mentioned are raised by the ombudsman, and it is fair to include them in the debate.
Paragraph 11 deals with complaints arising from the amount of time that staff can devote to observing and supervising individual patients. Once again, that is a function not just of training, experience and organisation but of health service resources.
I predict that, next year, the work of the health service ombudsman will take a new turn, because there will be a new challenge with the internal market, which will lead to new areas of complaint. No doubt the ombudsman will receive complaints from people that they cannot go to the hospital of their choice, because that is not where the contract has been placed, or that there is no contract to purchase the sort of care they need, such as infertility treatment, sterilisation or treatment for varicose veins.
It will be interesting to see how the ombudsman responds to complaints that might, for the first time, arise from treatment undertaken overseas. Some of the extra contractual referrals in the internal market procedure will be to hospitals overseas. No doubt the Committee will want to look at how the ombudsman deals with complaints arising from treatment in French hospitals.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Ms. Harman: I shall not give way again, because I want to press on with my remarks about the annual report.
The ombudsman's work is essential not only to address individual grievances but to be part of setting standards


and of supervision within the NHS. We need a three-way approach to ensure good quality care in the NHS. First, we should have a national inspectorate setting standards and monitoring the outcome—an NHS quality commission. Secondly, we need local accountability. District health authorities should be rooted in the interests of the local community, making sure that the health services in their area serve the local community.
Thirdly—this is where the ombudsman's work comes in—there must be rights for individual patients. That is why we have published a charter for patients. We require patients to know whom to complain to, what they can complain about and how long it will be before they can expect to obtain a response. Also, an essential part of ensuring good standards and adequate redress will be a no-fault compensation scheme.
I want to take the opportunity of the debate to raise cases in which something terrible has gone wrong but people cannot obtain redress through the ombudsman or the courts. The cases have been raised by hon. Members from all political parties. They are of patients other than haemophiliacs who have been given blood transfusions and, tragically, thereby have been infected with HIV. Some are very ill; some have died; but none has received a penny in compensation.
Davey, a 26-year-old chef from Scotland, was given a transfusion after a bone marrow operation to treat leukaemia. The operation was a success, but he was infected with HIV. He said that he felt that he had been given another death sentence: he had been given another illness for which there was no treatment or cure. A young man had an operation after a road accident and had an infected blood transfusion that gave him HIV. A London woman had a transfusion after giving birth to her baby. The baby was fine, but she was infected with HIV and has since died from AIDS. A seven-year-old girl from the north-west had a hole-in-the-heart operation. She is now a teenager, but her blood transfusion infected her with HIV.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) raised the case of a woman in her constituency, a lone parent, who was infected with HIV by a blood transfusion, but who is now dead. No compensation or redress can help her now, but she struggled with poverty as well as AIDS, and her four children were left with nothing.
When we have debated the issue, Health Ministers have denied compensation but have offered sympathy. We can all break our hearts about cases of men, women and children whose lives are overshadowed by the threat of AIDS, but they want not sympathy but justice. If there were any justice, they would get compensation. The Government were right to offer compensation to the haemophiliacs, but wrong to deny it to those who were not haemophiliacs but were infected with contaminated blood in exactly the same way. I hope that the Minister will announce that he will review those cases, but he must not delay because time is running out.
We must judge an organisation by what happens when things go wrong, as well as when things are going well. The annual report of the Health Service Commissioner says:
The hallmark of a service which cares for its consumers is an open complaints system which provides courteous, critical and thorough investigation of grievances.

That is important, but it must also be a comprehensive system. A system is not working properly if it provides redress for some people but not for others. Our system of redress will not be satisfactory or comprehensive until it includes a no-fault compensation scheme.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because for a short time I was a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Later, I joined the Whips Office, but I have now returned to the Select Committee. I am therefore a retread on the Committee.
On returning to the Select Committee, I was disappointed to find that some of the issues that I had raised before had not gone away. I wish to mention three, the first of which is literature. Some of the leaflets that the Government produce on people's rights or how to claim are written in gobbledegook. They have improved—they have some colour and some pictures and are looking better—but I used to lecture civil servants on the relationship between the Member of Parliament and the civil service. I used to take a leaflet from the nearest post office and read it to the civil servants. At the last lecture, I said, "This benefit leaflet is for an 80-year-old lady. Do you understand it, because I don't?"
If the literature is not right, it is not surprising that many people set off in the wrong direction in making their claim for benefit, and continue to go wrong. The Select Committee found that such problems occurred because people were given the wrong information. Improvements have been made, but this is one of my causes and I shall return to it again and again with the Select Committee until leaflets are produced that people can understand.
My second disappointment is that we are still arguing about the vexed question of clinical judgment, about which I remember the Select Committee arguing with the British Medical Association. The BMA said that, if a surgeon operates on someone and finds something unexpected, he must make a decision on the spot. People understand that things sometimes go wrong, but the BMA said that we must not allow clinical judgment to be examined. The Committee said that, if the BMA wanted to keep out of the courts and avoid moving to the American system—medical litigation is widespread in America—it should let the ombudsman investigate such cases. We felt that that would be a safety valve.
The Select Committee accepted that a surgeon had human life in his hands, but I pointed out that so does an aircraft pilot. He probably has 300 people behind him. If he makes a mistake, 300 people may be killed. A pilot may have to appear before inquiries, so why should not doctors? I am disappointed that we have progressed little on that vexed question.
My third disappointment is the delay between a Member of Parliament making an application to the parliamentary commissioner and a decision being made. The parliamentary commissioner is working hard to reduce the delay, but it is still far too long. Employees of the health service and of district health authorities were cross-examined by the Select Committee, but were able to dodge by saying, "It wasn't us; it was the previous people, who have left." That is not good enough. They read prepared briefs but cannot answer our questions and say,


"The people have left." Insufficient improvement has been made in reducing delays. I know that the ombudsman takes this seriously and is working hard to speed up the process. The average Member of Parliament does not want to put a case to an ombudsman, because it takes so long.
I shall continue to push for improvements in those three matters. On the whole, the system works well. We have been well served by parliamentary commissioners. They have always been of a high standard, have treated the Select Committee with respect and have used it to back up the problems they face. That is what is special about this country. In countries where the ombudsman has no Select Committee, he is on his own. The local government ombudsman does not have a Committee, although he might have a committee of councillors. However, they often have vested interests, so they are not as impartial as a Select Committee.
I welcome the debate as an excellent opportunity for us to discuss the work of the parliamentary commissioner. I wish him well in the future and I am sure that the Select Committee will back him and that we shall have satisfaction. I shall continue with my three issues—literature, clinical judgment and delay.

Mr. Mike Watson: Like my colleagues who serve on the Select Committee, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I have been a member of the Select Committee for a little more than a year and I have found it interesting and enjoyable. I am still on a learning curve with regard to the full range of activities of the Parliamentary Commissioners for Administration and for the Health Service. However, my experience of the past year has shown me that it is especially valuable to have a Select Committee that can call to account senior managment in health authorities in England and Wales and in health boards in Scotland. I particularly welcome the fact that Scotland comes within the jurisdiction of the commissioner on health service issues. It might be possible to widen that role in terms of his general responsibility, although that remains to be examined.
Of the complaints investigated by the commissioner last year, about 700 were new complaints, which must be initiated by Members of Parliament and, last year, 371 of my colleagues took the opportunity to initiate cases. That is commendable, although it represents only just over half the hon. Members who had the opportunity to do so. There may be a possibility of increasing that number in the future. Recently, the commissioner circulated to all Members an explanatory leaflet drawing attention to his role and to what can be achieved. He did so for the benefit of those who were unaware of his role. We can hope for an increase in the number of cases dealt with in the years to come.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck)—who was about to leave the Chamber, but who has had a rethink—said in his opening remarks that each Member of Parliament is himself or herself an ombudsman. It is important to underline that role because it is missing in other countries that have an ombudsman. I understand that last year the number of cases dealt with by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was just over 1,000. If we compare that with other countries, the number is rather small.
In November last year members of the Select Committee had the opportunity to visit Denmark and Sweden to consider at close quarters the work of the ombudsman in those countries. It was interesting to learn that in 1989 in Denmark, for example, the ombudsman dealt with just over 2,000 cases from a population of 5 million. In Sweden, he dealt with 3,000 cases from a population of 8 million. Those figures seem out of kilter with the figures for the United Kingdom, at least for England and Wales, where there is a population of about 50 million.
It must be understood that here Members of Parliament filter many cases and take them up directly with the authorities so that there is no need to take them further. There is no such system in Denmark or Sweden, partly as a result of their proportional representation system, which means that in many cases the individual does not know who his or her Member of Parliament is. There are no individual constituency Members of Parliament, so that would make such a system difficult. I am an advocate of proportional representation and it is important that when—I use that word advisedly—we move to a more proportional system we retain in some form the link between the Member of Parliament and his or her constituency. There is clear value in that.

Mr. William Ross: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) is speaking from a theoretical rather than a practical knowledge of proportional representation, of which some of us have more experience, I advise him to stick to his strictly first-past-the-post system, which is far superior.

Mr. Watson: With respect, I reject the advice of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). There are many examples of proportional representation producing a much more effective system of government than we have in this country.

Mr. David Trimble: STV is the worst form of PR.

Mr. Watson: I do not want to get into that debate. I am not advocating a single transferable vote. I regard that system as no fairer than the current system.
I shall return to our visit to Denmark and Sweden. There is an interesting aspect to the role of the ombudsman in both countries. He has the right to initiate cases as well as to receive them from various bodies. In practice, the numbers that the ombudsman initiated were fairly small—about 70 in Denmark and about 160 in Sweden. There is an open door which might be of value to our ombudsman if he had the opportunity to take up cases that came to his attention in some way other than through a Member of Parliament. I am not advocating the idea that an individual should be able to take a case to the ombudsman—I believe that the filter of the Member of Parliament should remain.
Although we are not dealing in detail with the role of the ombudsman for Northern Ireland, it is interesting to read his report. I have met Dr. Maurice Hayes a few times and I know that he chooses his words carefully. In his report he said that he "invited sponsorship" in some cases. That is constructive because in Northern Ireland Members of Parliament must also channel cases to him. However, there have been a number of cases in which he has contacted a Member of Parliament to say that a case might


be worthy of examination. There might be a similar role for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in England and Wales in the future. It is an idea to which the Select Committee might wish to give some thought.
Another area—perhaps a controversial one—in which the ombudsman might develop his activity involves his ability to investigate the police. In Denmark and Sweden, that role falls within the ombudsman's remit. We have a Police Complaints Authority, but there is some disquiet about the way in which police forces tend to investigate each other when there are complaints. That is unsatisfactory. Perhaps there is a role for the commissioner to consider complaints made by members of the public about the behaviour of the police. I shall give a couple of examples that arose in our discussions with our Swedish and Danish counterparts.
Perhaps the most noteworthy case that was referred to the Swedish ombudsman in recent years involved the behaviour of the Swedish police following the tragic murder of Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986. The way that the investigation was carried out was considered in detail by the commissioner and his recommendations were not kind to the police. There was also an interesting case which may open a door that would be difficult to close in this country. There were a number of complaints made in Stockholm following a Sweden-England football match when the Swedish police cordoned off areas of the city and denied access even to residents of those areas. One can imagine the fuss about that. It was within the remit of the ombudsman to investigate and he did so amid considerable publicity, which is no bad thing.
There was an even more remarkable case in Denmark. Largely as the result of an investigation of the way in which immigrants were treated while they were held in police custody pending consideration of their status, a Government Minister was forced to resign because of evidence that emerged against him. They may not be typical cases, but they show that there is a role for an independent investigator of cases referred to him relating to police activity. The Select Committee should consider discussing with the ombudsman and with other interested parties whether we should broaden his remit in such a way.
I shall also comment on the ombudsman's role as the Health Service Commissioner. In the year to March 1991, about 990 cases were received by the commissioner, which is a record. Only about 15 per cent. of them were found to be worthy of investigation, but it is pleasing to note, particularly in light of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), that the numbers are increasing. That is partly due to the fact that the Government widely circulated leaflets about the national health service reforms over the past two years. Those leaflets appear to have brought to people's attention the fact that they have the right to complain through the commissioner.
The main issue to come to my attention in the Select Committee was the discharge arrangements that apply in hospitals. We heard about some pretty horrific cases and we subjected the health service managers whom we asked to appear before us to some fairly strong questioning and we did not by any means receive satisfactory answers to all those questions. It was part of the Select Committee's remit to demand that the health authorities and health

boards that we questioned should report back to us on how they had improved their procedures as a result of our suggestions. It is also important to note that more than 50 per cent. of the cases investigated were upheld.
The health service ombudsman can investigate the NHS trusts that are now subject to some controversy. I hope that my colleagues on the Conservative Benches will not think that I am trying to make political capital out of this. In the near future the trusts at Guy's hospital or at Bradford royal infirmary might be investigated in terms of maladministration. At Guy's there is certainly prima facie evidence that there may be maladministration in terms of the general manager's contract and conditions of service and with regard to the substantial loss of 600 or 700 jobs. It is at least comforting to know that the commissioner has a role in investigating the trusts and that the trusts remain accountable, albeit in a more remote sense than some of us would like.
I have directed my remarks to the way in which the commissioner's role may develop. The commissioner has a role to play in Scotland. The local health councils in Scotland, which are equivalent to community health councils in England and Wales, have recently been reorganised. Those local health councils have been the subject of controversy because they have been significantly decreased in number and in terms of the number of people who serve on them. I am not alone in believing that their effectiveness will be reduced. Their ability to criticise health boards will certainly be reduced.
The Scottish Home and Health Department believes that the local health councils should not come within the remit of the Health Service Commissioner. It is said that they are not involved in the provision of health services. That is true, but they provide advice and assistance to patients and they are now closely linked to the health boards in Scotland. The health boards appoint the local health councils. Previously they were representative of local communities, but that is no longer the case. They will be much less likely to criticise the health boards because they are appointed by them.
The Scottish Home and Health Department and the Government cannot have it both ways. They have severely reduced the independence of the local health councils, which are now virtually adjuncts of the Scottish health boards. Therefore, they should be subject to the scrutiny of the Health Service Commissioner. They must submit annual work programmes and reports. They are accountable to the health boards and, in the same way as the health boards themselves are accountable to the commissioner, the local health councils should also be accountable.
The average man or woman in the street does not know enough about the role of the ombudsman. I must be honest: when I became a Member of this place I had only the vaguest notion of the ombudsman's role and how, if I had to, I could contact him to make a complaint. Debates like this help to raise the ombudsman's profile, although not as an individual—I am sure that Mr. Reid would not want that. However, his role must become more widely known. The more publicity we can get for that the better. Since Mr. Reid took over his post, he has publicised his role among Members of Parliament and that publicity must now be widened. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to use the ombudsman with regard to constituents' complaints and we must ensure that our constituents are aware of the services that are available. I


welcome my role on the Select Committee and I look forward to continuing and developing that role in the years to come.

Mr. Michael Lord: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), I am a relatively new member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I welcome this debate and the opportunity to consider our Committee's work. It is far from being the most famous Select Committee, although the ombudsman's role is becoming more widely recognised. However, the Committee does an enormous amount of important and useful work and it is gratifying that this debate recognises that fact.
I commend to the House the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, Mr. Reid, and his team. His job demands a mixture of qualities—a combination of administrative speed and legal precision that is not always easy to achieve. It includes concern for people combined with scrupulous fairness and the ability to produce accurate, concise and, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said, readable conclusions. That is absolutely crucial For the people who have made the complaints. From my experience on the Committee so far, all those things are achieved and it is no mean feat to pull together all those qualities.
The relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents is unique. In a sense, we are all ombudsmen. We deal with a vast majority of problems in our constituencies and we involve the ombudsman only when we believe that we cannot take the matter any further. That gives hon. Members an enormous degree of job satisfaction and in the main it serves our constituents well.
The ombudsman's role has now become accepted as part of our democratic framework. The ombudsman played a crucial role in issues of national importance such as the Barlow Clowes affair. However, at the same time, the ombudsman regularly deals with hundreds of smaller problems which, although smaller in a national context, are no less important to the people concerned.
In other countries the ombudsman plays a much larger role in the nation's affairs and some would argue that he should do so here. The Select Committee recently visited Scandinavia and saw at first hand the work of the ombudsmen there; they have a much more comprehensive brief and a freer hand in many ways. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central mentioned the sheer number of cases dealt with in Scandinavia as compared with the number of cases in this country.
Ombudsmen in Scandinavia are allowed to investigate more areas than our commissioners and they can initiate inquiries. That is something that we should consider here. In one of the countries that we visited, the ombudsman's office had a team whose job it was to scrutinise the papers daily to see whether there were issues that should be investigated. I am not sure whether that is the right approach, but perhaps we might at least consider giving our ombudsman a slightly freer hand.
I refer briefly to the question of people versus systems. The enormous value of the concept of the ombudsman is that it highlights the role and responsibility of the individual in the complex administrative frameworks that

we have created to run our country's life. At the end of the day, people make systems work. Systems may help or they may hinder, depending on how well they are designed, but people run them and are responsible for them. Too much reliance on systems and managerial frameworks rather than on personal responsibility can be disastrous.
The other factor that bedevils any system, and which has become one of my pet hates over the years, is jargon. It seems that some committees can hold entire conversations using only initials or titles that are meaningless to anyone outside that close professional circle. May I make a plea for plain speaking and simple language that everyone can understand?
I suppose that "The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration" is rather a long title; perhaps, in comparison with the simple word ombudsman, it could even be termed jargon. Much dearer to my heart, however, is the word matron. Let me deal briefly with the matron, who comes within the ambit of the Health Service Commissioner. In days gone by, the title and role of matrons was clearly understood. With the 1960s and 1970s came changes in structures, job specifications and titles which I believe have not proved helpful in many cases. The position of matrons has become obscured. It is time to bring it back—not just back, but right into the foreground of nursing.
Some time ago, I tabled an early-day motion—which attracted more than 100 signatures—supporting that idea. Hon. Members may know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has also been campaigning to reintroduce the matron. Since then, I have talked to colleagues and constituents, all of whom seem to agree with me.
I am sure that the Chairman of our Select Committee will bear me out when I say that, time after time, we ask witnesses whether, had one person been solely responsible for nursing care, the problem would have arisen; and, more often than not, the answer is no. The role, responsibility and title of matron were clearly understood. She was the person who could talk to consultants and doctors; she understood the needs of patients; and, as a trained nurse herself, she could manage her nurses with efficiency and understanding. Every nursing unit should have a matron in charge, and "matron" must be her title.
Let me quote from one of the various notes that I have received from the Department of Health. Advising hospitals about how to run their affairs, it states:
The professional head of nursing for the whole of the Unit may be called a Director of Nursing Services or a Matron".
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that "may" is not good enough, and that these titles are confusing. My hon. Friend smiles and I understand why: in many ways the topic is amusing. None the less, it goes to the heart of many of the problems that we encounter in the Select Committee, notably the understanding of roles and responsibilities on the part of those who are responsible and of those whom they are serving. I repeat my plea: let us have our matron back.
I have been in correspondence with various nursing organisations and I received a letter from the Sheffield and North Trent college of nursing and midwifery, which agrees entirely with what I am saying. The principal writes:
It may be of interest to note that in Sheffield the designation Matron has been retained by the Northern General Hospital, one of the first wave of NHS Trusts and has been introduced into the Doncaster Royal Infirmary


Montagu Hospital Trust. I would accept that the term has fallen into misuse over the years, but I do agree that it is readily understood by the public.
Again, let me plead with my hon. Friend the Minister. Let us not have the word "may"; let us press all our hospitals, and all organisations where nursing takes place, to reintroduce the matron and give her that title.
Having, I think, made that point as strongly as I can, I turn briefly to the entirely different question of court administration. Some time ago, on behalf of one of my constituents, I had cause to write to the Lord Chancellor about a case that had been brought to my attention. A man was contesting a divorce case. The solicitors on both sides and the client all agreed that a certain length of time would need to be taken by the court. Unfortunately, the court disagreed, saying that it would not need that much time, and a shorter period was allocated. In the event, the case needed the amount of time that the two solicitors had said that it would need and the two clients suffered both inconvenience and considerable financial loss as a result.
When I sought redress for my constituent, I encountered all sorts of problems from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I had great difficulty establishing exactly whose responsibility it was to decide such matters. Following a considerable amount of correspondence I have now heard from the Lord Chancellor's Department, which tells me that the allocation of time for cases is seen as a judicial decision and cannot be challenged in any way. What can be challenged is the administration of those decisions—in other words, the way in which witnesses are dealt with, messengers are sent and paperwork is handled.
In some ways, that is a step forward, but I am still unhappy that the allocation of time for cases cannot be challenged, even when so much inconvenience is involved. Moreover—although the Lord Chancellor's Department has made changes that took effect from 1 January this year—our ombudsman, who is allowed to look into the administrative side of court listings, still cannot examine the position of tribunal staff and their workings or investigate the Scottish courts.
Let me return to my opening remarks about the power and influence of our ombudsman and the question of widening his remit. Conservative Members would, I think, argue that the best way in which to run organisations that are not profit-oriented—such as the health service and the civil service—is to use the private enterprise system, or what we might sometimes describe as enlightened self-interest. Opposition Members may say that such organisations can be run efficiently by means of a system of brotherly or sisterly concern; but perhaps the best safeguard for the interests of the general public is a healthy respect for the powers and sphere of influence of a well-established and well-known ombudsman.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I much enjoy participating in the work of the Committee, which I consider very valuable. In my experience, all our witnesses—whoever they may be—are robustly questioned; and not just questioned, but sent away to bring back answers and, if need be, to effect changes in their sphere of responsibility. As I said earlier, I am delighted that we are holding this debate, which has recognized the valuable work that the commissioner does.

Mr. William Ross: We have before us a great many papers, which are listed on the Order Paper. Each of the four reports would merit its own debate, rather than their being knocked together for consideration in a debate lasting less than half a day—and such debates happen all too rarely at that.
We also have before us reports prepared by the ombudsman in his various guises in different parts of the United Kingdom, and the responses to them; and Select Committee reports. Currently serving on the Select Committee are the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), for Southport (Mr. Fearn), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). The previous members, since the start of the current Parliament, have been the hon. Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
All those people served as Members representing constituencies in Great Britain; not one was a Northern Ireland Member. They will understand—many are not simply political acquaintances, but personal friends of mine—that I am not criticising them when I say that they have been reared, and have lived both their parliamentary and their personal lives, in circumstances that are in many ways entirely different from ours, governed by entirely different administrative arrangements. Yet it is they who go to Northern Ireland to take evidence and to try to reach conclusions on what has been said.
No matter how worthy and hard-working Great Britain Members may be, I do not think that they really grasp the nuances of life in Northern Ireland, which means that, far too often, they do not ask the questions that we who represent the Province believe should be asked. We think that answers to those questions should be winkled out of the officials concerned, and even out of the ombudsman in his various guises, whether they like it or not. I would much have preferred to ask questions of an ombudsman who deals with affairs in Northern Ireland rather than to ask such questions of an ombudsman who also has to look after the affairs of the constituency of, for example, the hon. Member for Ashfield. I might not know very much about a mining community, but the hon. Gentleman would, and he would be better at asking such questions.
It is for that reason that I hope that the Government will look again at the question of establishing a Select Committee for Northern Ireland, which is vital and long overdue. In the absence of such a Committee, I hope that the Government will consider replacing Members from Great Britain—at least temporarily—with at least one Member from Northern Ireland whenever a Committee investigates matters relating to Northern Ireland. Frankly, the questions that need to be asked are not being asked, and we are not getting the answers we need. We will not do so without a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. At the very least, Members from Northern Ireland should serve on Committees that ask questions in or about the Province, or even of the Northern Ireland Office.
On page (iv) of the second report by the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for


Administration for Northern Ireland, I particularly welcome the comment that the Committee intends to examine "in due course" the annual report of the ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was published on 31 January this year. As it happens, the Committee was in Northern Ireland in January, looking at the previous reports. When the Committee examines the report which has been handed to us today, I hope that it will contain a Member from Northern Ireland who can ask the questions that need to be asked.
We read:
more complaints were made about planning than any other matter",
but we then read that the number of planning complaints was "remarkably few." This is the first point on which hon. Members from Great Britain got it wrong. Nobody in Northern Ireland complains about a planning application that is granted. Rows arise about the small percentage of applications that are refused and in those cases where the fellow goes ahead with the development anyway. Such people often drive not only a team of four through the application, but half a dozen teams of four, and gel. away with it.
The sooner that that nonsense is stopped and we make such people take down the buildings that they have erected, often at great expense, and try by blackmailing the Government to allow them to stay, the better. That transgression of the planning laws will not stop until the transgressors are dealt with harshly. Heaven help the first, but there will be no more transgressors after that, because one has to take action only once or twice for folk to get the idea.
We also read that Dr. Hayes is intent on
resolving cases, where possible, without a formal investigation.
I agree with that because, where there has been a slight misdemeanour. a quiet word will do more good than wielding the big stick. However, the commissioner in Northern Ireland sometimes seems to have been too willing to accept the assertions of officialdom instead of listening more carefully to the complainant.
In future, I hope that the complainant's word will be given considerably more weight and that, where there is a conflict of evidence or of understanding about what words actually mean, the person carrying out the investigation on behalf of the ombudsman's office will go back to check and, if necessary, will carry the matter forward into a formal investigation without any further ado. Officialdom sometimes gets away with things rather too easily.
I am also concerned about the long periods which sometimes elapse between start and end of an investigation. It is said that 11 months is now the average period for an investigation, but I can think of a few that have lasted rather longer and where I was still not all that happy about the conclusion. I hope that some effort will be made to deal with cases rather more speedily. Paragraph 9 refers to having "adequate legal advice". I hope that the ombudsman will try to get that, because the ombudsman's office in Northern Ireland needs good legal advice as soon as possible.
I am happy to note that the ombudsman will be able to spend rather more money in the future than has been the case in the past. Adequate resources are needed to carry out investigations into what are sometimes serious allegations.
I am concerned about the allegation in paragraph 15 that the ombudsman would like to be able to investigate a case that may be "just over the fence" from an investigation that he is carrying out. I am curious about the meaning of the phrase "just over the fence". I should have liked the ombudsman to set out his thinking rather more clearly and to know exactly what he was trying to say.
Was he saying that, if he is investigating a case and sees something associated with it but just beyond the scope of his current investigation, he cannot go into it unless there is a further complaint? If so, that would simply delay matters longer. I should like a clear explanation.
Paragraph 17 states:
We recommended that the Government examine the possibility of establishing a separate Health Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland.
We then read:
Nevertheless, the Department of Health and Social Services pointed out to him that his powers were, in some ways, wider than those of the Health Service Commissioners".
That may well be the case, but I suspect that the ombudsman's powers are very different from those of the Health Service Commissioners. I hope that the Select Committee will look into this again and adhere to its original recommendation that there should be a commissioner.
I could say a great deal more, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that he has some complaints to make.
I should now like to draw the House's attention to the annual report for 1990. Two of the important cases to which it refers arose in my constituency and were brought to the commissioner's attention by me. Those two cases caused me some heartache. One relates to patent searches and to complaints about LEDU—the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland—and the ISD—the Industrial Science Laboratory in Northern Ireland. To some extent, the questions that were raised remain unanswered. I am exceedingly unhappy about these cases, and it is for that reason, as much as for any other, that I hope that, the next time round, an hon. Member from Northern Ireland will be present so that the right questions can be asked.
I am concerned about another case—No. PC 148/88, which relates to an individual who alleged that he had sustained an injustice as a result of maladministration by the Department of Agriculture in relation to the slaughter of cattle. The case led to considerable loss for my constituent. The account of it covers six pages of the report, from which one can see immediately that it was a fairly major, long-winded and detailed investigation. It ended with my constituent receiving a small amount of monetary compensation, but the amount fell far short of compensating him for the heartache and mental anguish that he has suffered since the allegation was made that he had administered illegal drugs to his cattle. In fact, he was one of the leading opponents in Northern Ireland of the administration of that drug. The fact that he was found not guilty of that practice in relation to his second group of cattle sent to the abattoir is some consolation to him, but not very much.
When one comes across cases such as the two that I have mentioned, one wonders where we should draw the line relating to the powers and responsibilities of the commissioner. We are now overdue in taking another


long, hard look at the powers of the commissioner and at his investigative authority. We should try to sort out once and for all a system that is more effective than the present system, without going so far into legalities that we become involved in endless legal wrangles. That is a difficult line to assess but we need to take another look at it.

Mr. William Cash: I was interested in the final point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about whether we should engage in ceaseless legal wrangling. I say that as a lawyer, and for this reason. When we are deciding whether people should have redress of grievance—fundamentally that is one of the most important aspects of the function of this House of Parliament—we should not be deprived of the opportunity to make complaints on behalf of our constituents simply because they fall on one side or other of a line that has been drawn as a matter of law. From reading the Committee's reports, it seems that the office of the ombudsman does a remarkably good job. However, even that office becomes a little precise in the way in which it adjudicates. I know that it does a good job and that it does its best. However, we should address ourselves to the intrinsic quality and efficacy of the case in question.
I have two cases in my constituency. One is that of a Mr. Gane. He has had what I regard as a thoroughly raw deal. He was court-martialled many years ago. He is a first-class constituent and a man for whom I have the greatest respect. He has persistently sought to have his case reviewed by the Ministry of Defence. I have had a series of replies from Ministers. There is a voluminous file of correspondence on the case. There are all sorts of reasons why Mr. Gane's case cannot be given the consideration that I feel that it deserves. At the bottom line, without going into all the details—they are all on file—Mr. Gane has had a raw deal. I should like to feel that this House and the officials who are responsible for examining cases such as his could give that bit of extra attention to it. I should like to feel that they would not simply go over the facts again and come up with much the same answer.
I look to the Minister and those who have influence with him to take yet another look at Mr. Gane's case. It is time that he obtained the discharge which he would like and which I would like on his behalf. One vote in a constituency will not make very much difference, but there are times when people come into one's surgery whom one knows have had a raw deal. I feel strongly that Mr. Gane deserves a little more justice.
The case of another of my constituents, Mr. Kent, is rather different. He is now a pensioner but was previously employed in east Africa. I have had a lot of correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) about the case. My constituent was employed before legislation was passed which would give him a larger pension than he receives now. The details of the case are well known to officials in the Foreign Office. Without going into all the details, let me say that Mr. Kent has not had a fair deal. There does not seem to be any reason why a pensioner who worked in colonial administration before certain Acts of Parliament were passed should not receive the justice which applies to civil servants now receiving pensions—

sometimes, dare I say it, inflated pensions. My constituent, who in his own time did exactly the same job as those who receive larger pensions, is living in reduced circumstances simply because a line was drawn
The case of Mr. Kent reminds me of the old Court of Requests. People would go to someone like Sir Thomas More and say, "I have had a raw deal. There has been inequity. Do you not think that I should be given extra consideration? The line of the law has been drawn, but I have a case and I want redress of grievance." One would go to either the Court of Requests or Parliament. One would probably obtain justice. It was perhaps a little rough, but none the less one obtained it.
At the bottom of all the reports, the voluminous correspondence that underpins them and the good work that the office does—I make no complaint about that—I sometimes wonder whether the reasonableness that lies at the heart of justice is overlooked because we look at the minutiae of the law. In my correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North, the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I have raised the case of Mr. Kent on several occasions. My hon. and learned Friend replied that, although he would have liked to help, unfortunately he could not because the law did not provide for him to do so. One then looks to the law and asks whether Parliament will pass a new Act. Parliament will not pass an Act to help Mr. Kent. I should like to think that it would, but it will not. So we should consider in the context of this annual report whether more discretion should be allowed in cases such as those I have mentioned. I have only two cases in my constituency which come to mind, but I suspect that there are many more in the United Kingdom where a little extra flexibility would help to produce the redress of grievance and justice that people deserve.
I have put the two cases from my constituency before the House. Officials in the relevant Departments know exactly what I am talking about. Each case deserves a debate in its own right. With regard to Mr. Kent, I was intrigued to see that under the heading "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" in appendix A the report says: "See under HO." I take that to mean the Home Office. I then looked at the appendix which deals with complaints. I have not the faintest idea whether the complaint that I have in mind appears in that convoluted appendix, but I do know that people such as my constituents deserve a little more attention than they have received.
I do not expect the Minister who is on duty this evening to deal in his reply with the cases that I have mentioned, but I do ask that those cases, which are well known to the relevant Departments, are properly investigated and that my constituents are given a fair deal.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for four years. I have also been a local councillor for 22 years. During those years I have written many times to the local ombudsman. I always regarded the parliamentary ombudsman as rather a mysterious person in a mysterious office. When I became a member of the Select Committee, I found that we had a hard-working, hard-hitting Committee and certainly one which was exciting at times. It is so exciting that the television


cameras should come in some time. Not only one aspect or item but a variety of events is often dealt with, especially when the health service is being considered. Broadcasters would find it interesting.
I do not want the cameras to come into the Committee because we crave for television. I want the public to see what really goes on in the ombudsman's office. The present Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is excellent and previous commissioners were also excellent. They give us good answers, which everyone deserves to know about. At times, radio has picked up one or two items and the public have been grateful. The public are only just becoming aware of the work of the ombudsman and are beginning to use their Member of Parliament in the right way.
There is still confusion between the functions of the local ombudsman and those of the parliamentary ombudsman. Perhaps the problem can be cleared up in the future. The extent to which the services are being used is indicated by the figures. There are about 1,000 cases on the books. Of those, perhaps 500 will be rejected. The numbers vary. At a meeting of the Select Committee I asked what happened to cases that had been rejected. After all, the people concerned make sane and sensible complaints. The Parliamentary Commissioner said that complaints were not rejected out of hand, but were passed to others who could provide advice and help. The citizens advice bureaux take on board items that have been rejected by the parliamentary ombudsman. The Members of Parliament involved get the same sort of service through other organisations.
One third of all complaints concern social security. As other hon. Members have said, the main social security complaints arise from misleading forms and leaflets. In that respect, I think that the parliamentary commissioner is beginning to get the position rectified. Ordinary people are now much better able to understand the leaflets. Other matters about which large numbers of complaints are received concern the Inland Revenue, the environment, transport, trade and industry, and employment. I was very surprised to see in the latest report a reference to a complaint about the National Rivers Authority. As the NRA is a very new body, the complainant and the Member of Parliament were rather quick off the mark. Complaints are also received about defence and data protection. Indeed, the whole range of parliamentary business is covered.
Public awareness has been increased. At the request of the Select Committee, the commissioner has issued 150,000 leaflets, many of which are now to be found in libraries and in the premises of citizens advice bureaux and other organisations. They will help to remove some of the confusion and the veil of secrecy that people perceive to hang over the ombudsman's office. When we visited Canada, we found that the public there were aware of the system. It was not a joy trip by any means; we covered 11,000 miles in seven days. Indeed, at one time we lost the Chairman. He was talking to a group of people about the work of the ombudsman and missed the plane. However, he caught up at the next stop. The Canadian system is efficient. But, of course, so is ours. I missed the trip to Scandinavia—if one may call it a trip—but I understand that the same sort of efficiency is to be found there. Indeed, efficiency is to be found throughout the world. As ombudsmen meet internationally, albeit not on a formal

basis, we may see such systems develop throughout the world. It seems to me that there will soon be a Euro-ombudsman.
The Select Committee was aware of the efficiency of the office in respect of the Barlow Clowes case. Practically every Member of Parliament received letters about that affair. I received 27 complaints. The matter was resolved very satisfactorily. We are very grateful for the work that the commissioner's office did. Of the money that was lost, 90 per cent. has been paid back.
Health service complaints constitute one of the most interesting aspects of the commissioner's work. They cover a variety of items, including the procedures for the discharge of elderly people from hospital. The Committee heard from people about health authorities whose procedures were very wrong. In some instances, relatives brought complaints rather timidly but had their cases upheld. I am thinking, for instance, of situations in which people died within a few days of their discharge from hospital. Then there is the recording of falls or of untoward incidents. I recall the terrible case of a lady amputee being left to go to the toilet alone, falling off the toilet, and lying for quite some time before being found. That was one of many cases. Another matter that comes to our attention is the training of staff in the handling of bereavement. It is vital that hospital staff be given proper training. The matter has been highlighted by the office and by the Select Committee. Then there is the question of setting up local complaints procedures. We have community health councils and other bodies, but local complaints procedures need to be examined very closely.
One case that comes to mind concerns a mentally disturbed hospital patient whose money was used to buy seven pairs of trousers. We thought that that was amazing. An investigation revealed that the money had simply been used very carelessly. Clearly, the person concerned did not need seven pairs of trousers. One of the most important facts to have emerged during my four years on the Committee is that various hospitals hold £67·7 million of patients' money. The money is held in the patients' names, and relatives have the right to decide what should happen to it. Many of those patients are incapable of going out into the community, and the money should be—and is—used for their benefit. The Southport and Formby health authority does excellent work. A young man in Greaves Hall hospital was very keen on Elvis Presley—so keen, indeed, that it was his life. His money was used to send him to an Elvis convention in America, and he has never stopped thinking and talking about it. In my opinion, that was a good use of his money. The enormous sum of money that I have mentioned—£67·7 million—must be closely guarded. This is a matter that should come within the scope of the parliamentary commissioner.
There is still confusion about the titles of hospital staff—ward sisters, ward managers and matrons. Administrative posts, too, seem to vary from one place to another, even though the people concerned do the same jobs. Committee witnesses, as well as Committee members, seemed to be confused about the grading system. Perhaps pressure from the Committee and the commissioner will result in this problem being cleared up.
The loss of records is another serious problem that keeps cropping up. I believe that the system is being tightened, but there have been instances of junior doctors—they were and still are extremely overworked—taking home work. Once some records were found in a junior


doctor's car boot. Some such doctors have given up, and records have disappeared with them as they disappeared from the service. It is a great problem for hospitals, patients and their relatives to follow through those records. The parliamentary commissioner and the Select Committee now have their fingers on the pulse of that problem, and they will not let go.
I asked the commissioner whether prisoners had the right to use the ombudsman's office, and found out that they have as much right as anybody else. They do not use their right frequently, but there have been complaints from within the prison service that have been upheld. I was pleased to see that in the report for 1990.
All the items that I have described have come before us through the parliamentary commissioner and his excellent staff. We do our best in the Select Committee, and enjoy doing so. We have an excellent Chairman, too, but I would also like to thank the parliamentary commissioner and the workers in his office for all that they do. Until this debate their work was unsung.

9 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes: It is a great pleasure to talk about the office of the parliamentary commissioner. Like its Chairman, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who is not in the Chamber, I have served on the Select Committee for some time. The trick is to know exactly what is going on.
It has been interesting over the years to observe the different parliamentary commissioners who have served the Select Committees and the House. Every one of them has been first class. They have all done a marvellous job. But one group has not yet been mentioned so I shall mention it now. The Select Committee could not manage without the Committee Clerks, who serve us in preparing reports and in providing information of all sorts. We have had different Clerks over the years, and they have all served us well.
Even if the general public do not know about the parliamentary commissioner, Government Departments do, and in no uncertain terms. Some of them have come in for a bit of rough treatment for the way in which they have served the community or individuals. Furthermore, people have been seconded from various Departments into the parliamentary commissioner's office. I wondered about that idea, and have questioned it from time to time, but at least it means that those who are seconded for a period and then return to their Departments can let those Departments know exactly where they stand with the parliamentary commissioner's office. The Departments are told that they must be on their toes and look over their shoulders because the parliamentary commissioner is watching them.
Another idea that worried me was that a Department such as the Treasury could have someone in the parliamentary commissioner's office. I thought, "Hello, hello. We have a spy in the camp." Someone who had been seconded could be tipping off his Department about what was going on. It works both ways. I have been a little worried about the secondment of people into the office, but in practice it works quite well. We have sometimes been to the parliamentary commissioner's office to talk to staff. That is how I found out about secondment—a

chappie was introduced to me as having come from the Treasury. I was a little worried, but I have overcome that problem now. The parliamentary commissioner has set my mind at rest.
As I said, the Clerks do a first-class job and the Committee could not work without them. The service that they provide for every member of the Committee helps us to know exactly what is going on.
I do not know for how long we banged on the door of the Administration to debate the issue of the parliamentary commissioner on the Floor of the House. At long last we are having that debate, which gives us an opportunity to publicise, through the cameras, the wonderful work of the parliamentary commissioner's department. As members of the Select Committee, we get to know all that department's business and the parliamentary commissioner feeds us well—there is no doubt about that.
Naturally, the parliamentary commissioner sometimes has to come to us and say, "I think you had better call this lot in and give them a going over". By God, that has been done many a time. Tory Members come into the Committee Room and get a rough ride. They should not be there, but come because they have stepped out of line and things have gone wrong.
I remember sitting in a dark corner of the Chamber when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn)—he is in another party, but we are all friends on the Committee—was present, and the questions to the Secretary of State were on Barlow Clowes. The Secretary of State wanted to know nothing about the matter, despite the fact that many people were taken for a ride. Two of my constituents were ex-miners who had taken redundancy settlements of £20,000 and £25,000. They had sunk every penny into Barlow Clowes and all their money went to Gibraltar. We may have problems here, but Gibraltar was even worse. The Secretary of State did not want to know, but the matter was referred to the parliamentary commissioner, which was the best move that has ever been made in this place. He sorted the job out and the Government had to change their minds. The Tory Administration and Secretary of State in office at that time—everyone knows who he is because he has just put his house on the market for £1 million—did not want to know but the parliamentary commissioner did his job and those people were paid. That clearly shows the importance of the office of the parliamentary commissioner, which does a first-class job. I must be a little careful because the matter is sub judice—the person responsible has yet to go to court and the inquiry is going on—so I shall say no more.
For Members with constituents involved in that business it was a nightmare, so it must have been a nightmare for the parliamentary commissioner and the wonderful staff who serve under him. We have been talking about the parliamentary commissioner, but we must not forget his deputies and his whole team who have done a first-class job. From time to time, we have been across to look at their department.
The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) mentioned the courts. That issue bothered us. We realised that we had a problem because we were being denied the opportunity to ask the parliamentary commissioner to take action. So what did we do? We summoned the Lord


Chancellor to our Committee. At first he said, "I ain't coming"—he was an awkward beggar—but in the end he had to come.
I remember when the Lord Chancellor marched into the Committee Room. Before he came in, however, we had a little private discussion and the Chairman said to all of us, "Be careful what you say and what you ask. For God's sake don't upset him or we will not get anything." The Lord Chancellor came in with an army of officials. He sat down and spoke for 15 minutes and told us, straightforwardly, that we were not going to get what we were looking for. I then indicated to the Chairman that I wanted to say something. He did not like calling me because he knew that I was seething. I told the Lord Chancellor that I felt that I had been shot down by Dillinger—the House will remember Dillinger, that big American gangster.
When that Lord Chancellor was changed, the new one moved in the right direction. He allowed us to study the administration of the courts. Some bad things were going on and there had been some slip-ups as well as massive administrative delays. The parliamentary commissioner can now study all that, which is a step in the right direction.
I believe that the parliamentary commissioner needs to be given more teeth. I have always said so. He needs that extra power to take the right action because at present he only recommends—he does not make any decision. He should be able to make decisions, never mind recommendations.
One of the Health Ministers is here tonight. What about all the problems in the blooming health service? We are not getting what we should be having because the health service is not getting the proper resources—I shall prove that later. The Minister is pulling on his ear and making out that he is reading, but I hope that he is listening to all the problems that we have in the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned a number of cases that the Committee and the Health Service Commissioner considered. The House should understand that that person wears two hats—he is the parliamentary commissioner and the Health Service Commissioner. He does a first-class job of both and he gets on with it. There is no doubt about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred to an elderly lady with one limb who sat on a commode and fell off the damn thing because no one was there to look after her. That was shocking.
The Committee has summoned various health authorities and has given them a real going over to put the wrongs right. Often they have put things right before they appear in the Committee because the people who made the mistakes have moved on. The new people have to deal with the problem and put it right. Sometimes, however, we get the people who made the mistakes. Then the Committee shows no mercy, it just gets stuck in and tells them quite clearly where they went wrong. We have also made it clear that some penalty should be imposed because of the serious mistakes that have been made from time to time.

Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman's impact on the Committee is considerable, as is his impact on the senior civil servants who come before us. The Committee values the wonderful work that he does with us. I should, however, correct one thing that he said. Lord Hailsham was keen to come before the Committee—it did not take

any dragging from the Woolsack to get him to the witness stand. In fact, Lord Hailsham volunteered to appear before the Committee. The Committee was literally after his staff, but, in fairness to Lord Hailsham, he insisted on coming to be subjected to strenuous cross-examination from the hon. Member and me, too.

Mr. Haynes: It took the Chairman of the Select Committee a bit of time to think about that. I mentioned it ages ago. I accept what he says. However, I am putting my point of view and how I felt about it at the time. The Lord Chancellor's comments blooming well upset me. I am not used to being talked to like that and I did not like it at all, so he had it coming to him and he got it. I had the final word, anyway. The result was that we did not get from him what we were looking for. We had to wait for the present Lord Chancellor, who is a real gentleman. We got what we were looking for from him, but we need to go even further as time goes on and I am sure that we will.
We have had the district or regional health authorities in on many occasions when there have been serious problems. I remember one occasion when a sister in a geriatric hospital was covering a number of wards throughout the night. Patients of that age need to be turned, but they were short of staff. We come back to resources again—to provide adequate staff to do the job properly. We should look into that. It amounts to maladministration if the right resources and number of bodies are not provided to give a proper service.
I remember well hearing about a geriatric lady who, having seen the consultant, was stuck in a wheelchair in the corridor all flipping day. She was incontinent and freezing cold and was not given a cup of tea or a bite to eat. Everybody walked past her in the corridor. The poor old dear was left there. That was one complaint that we heard about, but there are many similar complaints about the national health service. When those complaints are brought to our attention, it is our job to ask the parliamentary commissioner to look into them and do something about them. He should have more teeth. I hope that we shall soon be in a position to give him more teeth so that he can really get stuck into the job. I shall be right behind him.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). He is one of the few Members who can communicate with his constituents from the Palace of Westminster without the medium of the telephone. It is also a great pleasure to be able to take part in the debate, although I am not a member for the Select Committee, for reasons that I shall explain.
I take particular comfort from the words used by the ombudsman when he refers to his health service functions. They are to be found in paragraph 57 of his annual report. No one else, I believe, has referred to them, so it is important to put them on the record. In paragraph 57 he says:
By highlighting some of the problems which can arise, my purpose is to promote a better service for future patients who look to the NHS for health care.
I think that we all agree with that. Tonight we are interested in whether the ombudsman has sufficient


resources and in whether his role is defined in the right way to permit him to carry out the mission that he has picked out.
All hon. Members who are here tonight do not, I believe, consider that the ombudsman has a wide enough role. He cannot look at NHS problems quickly enough to enable him to carry out his purpose, according to the words that I have just read. At the moment, he is a sort of grumbling appendix for the national health service. A patient, a Member of Parliament, a relative and, in some sad cases, the next of kin takes up a complaint about the administration of health care. Sometimes that complaint goes via the community health council. That is one of the advised ways of taking up a complaint. The community health council then takes up the complaint with the health authority. If the health authority rejects the complaint, or fails to answer, the Member of Parliament takes it up with the ombudsman—or the patient takes it up direct with the ombudsman. He then looks into the complaint and may make a recommendation. If the ombudsman thinks it is a really serious complaint, he brings it to the attention of the Committee chaired by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). If the Committee thinks that it is important, it will write it up in the annual report. A month later the House debates it. That whole process may take up to two years. During that period somewhere in the NHS someone has probably managed to get a cataract operation or even a hip replacement. It is a slow and tortuous process. It is shutting the stable door long after Shergar is in the next county or even in the next world.
We are reviewing the role of the ombudsman to find out what else he might need to do in future compared to the service—excellent though it is—that he has provided in the past. Can we speed up the process? If so, how can we do it? Should the ombudsman be able to adopt a fast-track approach in certain cases if he thinks that he should step in immediately rather than deal with the matter retrospectively? Should he have a challenge role whereby he can write to the health authority straight away? The ombudsman may comment not on the clinical aspects of treatment but on administrative aspects. He may suspect maladministration which he wants to investigate immediately. At the moment he cannot do that; all he can do is to take retrospective action.
The ombudsman has to steer a narrow channel. He may not look into clinical matters or resources and strategy. If a patient cannot get treatment in a hospital because it has closed, provided the closure was carried out properly, with authority from the Secretary of State for Health or from his territorial opposite number in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the ombudsman cannot challenge that. If the hospital has been closed properly, that is not maladministration.
If a patient cannot get treatment within the specified period and dies as a result, that is not maladministration either. That is a clinical matter which can be taken up by the person's next of kin who may seek compensation because the patient was neglected.
What is maladministration? I want to give an example of what I consider to be maladministration, which I have drawn to the attention of the ombudsman in Wales today.
It is an illustrative example of what I think that the ombudsman should be able to do by a fast-track, challenge method.
The children's ward in Rhydlafar orthopaedic hospital, Cardiff, the main orthopaedic hospital serving south Wales, is being closed. The procedure is being carried out properly. There is no challenge to that. The Minister's opposite number in Wales has authorised the closure and the reason for closure was explained last October. The authorisation was delayed because of the Gulf war. Permission has now been given by the Secretary of State and the ward is to be closed. The last admissions were yesterday and probably all the patients will be out by Friday. Is that maladministration?
When the in-patients were told that the hospital was to close, the consultant in whose care they were was not there. Let me explain the dates. The date on which the closure was announced to the patients still there was 11 April. The hospital administrator told the parents of the children in the ward that the last admissions would be on 30 April and that all the children were to be out by 3 May.
The consultant in whose care they are is on holiday for a fortnight and nine days of his holiday remain. He is a constituent of mine, Mr. John Hombal. As he was at home, the health authority tried to get hold of him that Friday but did not manage to do so. The hospital administrator had to ask the parents of the children who were continuing their in-patient treatment whether they would prefer their children to transfer to a children's ward at the Cardiff Royal infirmary or to an adult ward at the same hospital—the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital.
One of the patients is a nine-old child who would have to be transferred to a ward of women patients whose average age is 75. Another is a boy who had an accident and had to be readmitted to hospital as the pins in his legs had to be re-set. He would have to spend quite some time in hospital in a ward full of old men. The consultant has gone to Spain on holiday. He has every right to do that, but he is not due to return for another week. When he returns he will advise the patients to transfer to an adult ward in the same hospital and not to the children's ward at another hospital.
Is it maladministration to give parents the choice of whether their children should switch to another hospital in order to remain in a children's ward—it is sound paediatric practice that children should always be in hospital with other children—or to transfer to the adult ward in the same hospital for the sake of the continuity of nursing care when there is no doctor aroujd on whom they can rely for medical advice?
The parents told me that they felt completely at sea. They said, "How were we supposed to make such a choice when our doctor is not around to be consulted?". The children are not in the care of the hospital administrator; they are in the care of the consultant, Mr. Hombal, but the hospital administrator said to parents, "Here is your choice. Tell me by next week, if you possibly can"; and needs a decision before the consultant comes back.
It seemed to me, and the ombudsman has confirmed it prima facie, that that is a possible definition of maladministration. It certainly worries me. What worries me more is the fact that if the ombudsman were in a position to step in he might say that, had the consultant been around, he would have explained to the health authority that he recommended clinically that the children should not be transferred out of the hospital because he


wanted to continue their care in the same hospital even if the children's ward were closed and they had to transfer to an adult ward. Although it is not good practice that they should be in an adult ward, at least they will have the same nurses who know about the long-drawn-out process of leg lengthening.
When the consultant returned, he explained to me why he had recommended that the children should remain in the same hospital. He said, "Clinically, I would never advise that a child who is having leg lengthening gets one leg lengthened in one hospital and then transfers to another hospital to have the other leg lengthened." I cannot imagine anything worse than having one leg lengthened by three inches and the other by two inches as a result of changing from anaesthetists and nurses who were experienced in that procedure to those who were less experienced.
That is an illustration of what I would consider a good reason for the evolution of the role of the ombudsman into a challenge role whereby the ombudsman could say to the health authority, on a fast-track basis, "You had better stop what you are doing until we have had a chance to look at it, because it appears that you have broken the rules of medical ethics and procedure."
Consultants whom I have told about that case in which parents have to make a difficult choice without being able to consult a doctor tell me that it breaks all the rules of sound medical practice. It is not a matter that can be taken to the General Medical Council as a case of medical negligence because no doctor is involved. But that is precisely the point. No doctor is involved because the hospital administrator, through no fault of her own, was put in the impossible position of asking medical questions when the patients are not in her care but in the doctor's care, and the doctor happens to be away on holiday.
What on earth are we supposed to do? There is a role for the Member of Parliament and there is a role For the ombudsman, which I should like to think might not always be as retrospective as it is today. There is also the usual process of ringing up the chairman of the health authority and asking him what he is doing about the matter. I have done that, and it is quite clear that the chairman of the health authority was not even told by the unit general manager that the consultant was away on holiday so that the parents could not consult him before having to decide to which hospital their children should be transferred when the ward is closed halfway through their in-patient treatment. How are they supposed to operate when the chairman of that authority did not know that the decision was being pressed on to the parents while the consultant was away on a well-deserved holiday? In trying to steer a channel between being able to consider strategy and resource decisions, which are properly the province of the Minister; the execution of the decisions, which is properly the province of the health authority; and clinical decisions, which were not involved in this case because there was no doctor present, the ombudsman has a restricted and retrospective role.
If we are to move to a system similar to that of the Danes or the Swedes, the ombudsman must be able to challenge decisions halfway through their execution. He could bring enormous benefits to administration of the health service by acting as a check against abuses and the steamrollering of decisions while doctors are away. The ombudsman's role must be permitted to evolve to answer the new requirements of the more commercial health

service. Unfortunately, we are moving towards a more market-oriented system, and we shall need a stronger ombudsman if more patients are not to suffer.
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having the opportunity to put my strong feelings on the record. I shall wait to see what the health commissioner in Wales makes of this case.

Mr. David Trimble: I am glad that the subject for debate includes the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, particularly as I raised the issue during business questions last Thursday. Although it does not appear on the Order Paper, I hope that the debate also covers the Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints. I have his report here. The same person holds both posts and produces one report.
In recent years, complaints to the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have followed a familiar pattern. Most of them relate to town and country planning issues and welfare benefits. In 1990, there were 35 complaints on each subject, out of a total of 164. To that total we should add the five complaints about the Northern Ireland Office and the court service that were made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Great Britain.
I hope that the paucity of complaints about the Northern Ireland Office is not taken as suggesting that there is satisfaction with its work. It probably reflects ignorance of the fact that complaints about that Department go to the British commissioner. I hope that something can be done about that.
I should like to draw attention to the almost total absence of complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about alleged political or religious discrimination. That is significant, in view of the allegations that are regularly made about the administration of Northern Ireland. It is not something new, since it has also occurred in previous dispensations.
The spread of complaints to the commissioner for complaints is interesting. In 1990, out of 331 complaints, only 45 were against local bodies, mainly local authority bodies. Thirty-nine were against education boards, 82 were against health boards, and 114 were against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The pattern is not new. In recent years, more complaints have been made against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive than any other local body. If the number of complaints reflects consumer satisfaction, the Housing Executive has no grounds for complacency.
In view of the perception common in some places that there is something wrong or unusual about local democracy in Ulster—such as it is—there are comparatively few complaints against local authorities. Of those, only two were upheld. One related to delays in completing a compulsory purchase. The commissioner for complaints said that the local authority
displayed a clear lack of strategic thinking and this deficiency led to a lamentable failure to get to grips with the question of acquiring the complainants' land. I recognise the difficulties faced by the Council in terms of changing government attitude to grant-aid, the counter-proposals it received from the complainants and delays engendered by the public inquiry … Nevertheless, I am convinced that the development of a


clear strategy at the outset and less faith in its policy of acquisition by agreement would have resulted in a much more businesslike resolution".
I do not complain about the result in that case, but of what local authority in England could not something similar be said?
The commissioner for complaints heard an allegation of discrimination on religious grounds about the failure of a person to be appointed to the post of principal at a nursery school. I am happy to say that, after a painstaking inquiry, in which the commissioner took evidence on oath from the parties—the case is notable for that precedent—the allegation was disproved. I am especially delighted that the commissioner heard that case, because appointments in schools are not fully covered by the fair employment legislation. Indeed, the unequal application of that legislation, and the privilege given to certain sectors in education to discriminate, is much resented in Ulster.
It is time to reconsider the range of remedies that are available to aggrieved citizens—not only the ombudsmen but the role of judicial review. That is especially pressing because judicial review has been extended in recent years.
I had a case in my constituency a few months ago, the subject of which is not important, on which the Department made an unsatisfactory decision. The Department appeared to have moved the goalposts, so I raised the case with it. Correspondence was exchanged, but not much progress was made. In the back of my mind was the possibility of referring the matter to the parliamentary commissioner, but my aggrieved constituent decided on a faster way of dealing with the matter, by making an application for judicial review.
I wished her luck with the proceedings and hoped that the financial risks would not be too high. A mere three weeks later, she came into my constituency office and happily reported that, shortly after proceedings were commenced, the Department threw in the towel and settled. It agreed not only to reopen the case but to procedures to deal with it. I had been trying for a long time to get the Department to agree such a course.
Hon. Members have not fully appreciated the way in which judicial review has changed such cases. It has one enormous advantage—any aggrieved person can apply. Whatever the original reason for a parliamentary filter on applications to the ombudsman, is there any point in retaining that obstacle, especially as it does not apply to the Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints, which does not seem to have caused a problem?
Judicial review has the advantage of access, but its disadvantage is that it has no power to award damages. The ombudsman has no power, but compensation is often paid by settlement. That is not good enough, because compensation by settlement rests on the grace and favour of the Department. It is unacceptable that a citizen who has been proved right should have to go as a supplicant to the Department that has been proved wrong. Sometimes payments are not made.
An example of that appears in paragraph 23 of the second report of the Select Committee. The problem arose from the construction of a police station. The commissioner concluded—the Select Committee agreed with him—that it was unfair that the complainant's home should be seriously devalued by the fortress that surrounded it, and that she lived in constant fear of

terrorist attack. The Select Committee recommended that the Department should reconsider the legal position. I sought to move an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that would have dealt with the matter. I am glad to have the somewhat belated support of the Select Committee. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity in another place to resolve the matter.
The solution to the problem of monetary compensation is to give a right to damages, for which there is a precedent. The Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints made findings that enabled the parties' damages to be assessed by the courts. That is unique to the Northern Ireland commissioner. The parliamentary commissioner for complaints does not have the same power to make a finding that can be followed up in the courts and damages assessed.
I am well aware of that procedure because, in one of the first major cases in Northern Ireland, a number of my colleagues in the local authority had to bear heavy financial bills. I shall not go into the details of the case, but they felt somewhat aggrieved—with reason—and thought that it had been unfair. They suffered from what was until then a novel and little-known procedure. It may now be a little better known in Northern Ireland, but should it be confined there?
Why should public bodies and some councillors have to carry a potential penalty that is not applied to people elsewhere in Great Britain? It should apply generally; there is nothing unique about the cases that arise in Northern Ireland and to which the procedure applies. Having read the report of the parliamentary commissioner for complaints, who can say that similar cases do not arise on this side of the water? On matters concerning the rights and remedies of the citizen, there should be no discrimination between one part of the kingdom and another.
I hope that, in the general review of grievance procedures which I have suggested, the rights of the citizens in Great Britain will at least achieve the level of those in Ulster. In addition, I hope that the remedies of all will be significantly enhanced.
We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I hope that debates on this subject will be more frequent, especially as long as we who represent Northern Ireland constituencies continue to be under-represented on Select Committees.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin by echoing the comments by hon. Members of all parties in thanking those who currently fill the offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Health Service—Mr. Reid—and Mrs. Mclvor, who combines the office of the Northern Ireland PCA with that of the Commissioner for Complaints. Tributes have been paid to their hard work and to the effectiveness of that work.
I also join the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the previous holders of those offices who established a high standard of work, which the current holders undoubtedly continue. The standing of the various ombudsman posts has undoubtedly been enhanced by the people who have


previously occupied them. In his typically generous fashion, the hon. Gentleman wished to extend thanks to the people filling the offices of Clerk to the Select Committee.
Listening to the hon. Member for Ashfield talking about his work on the Select Committee, I began to wonder what he was like as a Committee man. The House is familiar with his style and delivery in the Chamber—

Sir Antony Buck: Forceful.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. and learned Friend describes the hon. Gentleman as forceful, which is no surprise. The debate has centred on essentially administrative and relatively important but low-key issues, but the hon. Gentleman nevertheless managed to make the populist speech that we have come to expect from him. He is a one-man argument for delaying the general election so that we shall continue to have the pleasure of his presence in the House. He will forgive me if I observe that Dillinger was before my time. I have learnt something—indeed, quite a lot—this evening, not least from the hon. Gentleman's reference to Dillinger.
I begin my more serious comments by picking up on the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) who rightly stressed that the importance of the ombudsman process is its function of ensuring that democracy not only works but is seen to work and that the citizen has an effective right of redress if the various organs of the state do not fulfil efficiently and effectively the task for which they have been established. I shall deal with my functions in a moment. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that if the state is not seen to be effective and if there is not adequate machinery for redress if it is not effective, democracy gets a bad name and that is enough to put the concept itself under threat. I entirely agree with him. That establishes the importance of the work carried out by the ombudsman. There can be few more important responsibilities of this House than to ensure that democracy works effectively and that we are seen to be accountable to the people who elected us to this place.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North was right to stress the importance of the accountability of the ombudsman to Parliament. The principle upon which our constitution is built is that civil servants are responsible to Ministers and Ministers are responsible to this House for everything that goes on in their Departments. No Minister should ever wish to avoid that responsibility. The accountability of Health Ministers for what happens in the health service, including the trusts, and the accountability of other Ministers for what happens in their Departments is to the House. It is the task of every hon. Member to try to enforce that accountability. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North was right to describe the ombudsman as a bolt in the armoury of an hon. Member. The ombudsman is one of the machineries that enhance the effectiveness of individual Members in calling the bureaucracy to account.
Several hon. Members argued that the role of the ombudsman should be enhanced possibly by providing direct access to the parliamentary ombudsman. Indeed, one hon. Member argued that the ombudsman should be allowed to initiate inquiries on his own authority and to pursue a particular line of inquiry within the bureaucracy.
Before we go down that route, we should remember that the accountability of Ministers is to the House and that the essence of the ombudsman is to enhance the effectiveness of hon. Members in calling the bureaucracy to account through the House. That is the way in which our constitution works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) tried to draw parallels with the system operating in some Scandinavian countries. They must remember the different constitutional histories of those countries and the importance that we have historically always placed on maintaining the principle that bureaucracy is accountable through Ministers to Parliament and that Ministers can answer questions at the Dispatch Box about what happens within their Departments.
The ombudsman was established as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. His principal concern is to ensure that the public service delivers to the citizen a quality of service which the citizen is entitled to expect. Public administration is, if we like, his core business.

Mr. Morgan: That is trust language.

Mr. Dorrell: I make no apology for asking of any organisation what is its core responsibility or business. The ombudsman's core concern is the efficiency of public administration.
With regard to the health service, the ombudsman is not properly interested in clinical judgment. One of the first things that I learnt when I arrived at the Department of Health was the entirely proper importance attached throughout the health service to ensuring that administrators do not interfere with clinical freedom. That applies just as much to the ombudsman as to Ministers and administrators within the health service.
However, that is not an excuse to allow people to hide behind clinical responsibility where that is specious. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North were concerned that clinical freedom should not be used as a defence when that is not a real or effective defence. However, where there are genuine clinical questions, those are not properly matters into which the ombudsman should inquire. It is particularly important to emphasise that merely to establish that they are clinical questions does not make them immune from review. There is a procedure within the national health service to review clinical questions, but that is properly a procedure that has been agreed with the professions and that takes account of the special nature of clinical questions. It is important to establish the difference between administrative and clinical questions, and to insist that clinical questions go through a proper process of clinical review and that we do not seek to confuse them in the ombudsman's operations.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said that she thought that surprisingly few complaints were addressed to the Health Service Commissioner about the operation of the NHS. She advanced three possible explanations. Perhaps there was not a "culture of complaint" in the health service; perhaps there was not adequate knowledge of the procedures for complaint—although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central pointed out that the leaflet issued last summer, in the teeth of


considerable opposition from Labour Members, contained a passage setting out the procedures to be followed by any individual wishing to make a complaint. The hon. Lady's third explanation was that the citizen might not know the cause of the inadequacy in health service care from which he felt that he had suffered.
I was struck by the fact that the hon. Lady did not appear to entertain the possibility that the explanation might just be that the health service, in the vast majority of cases, provided a very high standard of care of which we should all be proud, and for which we should all be grateful.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to the passage in the report that deals with discharge arrangements. It is indeed important to ensure that such arrangements are effective and that proper community support is given to those who are discharged from acute hospitals and who must then rely on community health services. That is part of the effective management and use of resources within the health service.
When the hon. Lady quoted from paragraph 18 of the report she quoted only the first half of the sentence, if memory serves. The passage that she quoted states, rightly:
Pressure on beds means that hospital doctors do not usually want to keep patients in hospital longer than is really necessary".
The sentence goes on:
And, in general, patients who have adequate facilities and support—whether professional or from carers—are eager to return home.
There are two quite proper pressures for a patient to be discharged as soon as that is clinically right. The first is the need—for the effective use of resources—for acute bed space not to be taken up by those who no longer need those resources. Secondly, and much more important, medicine is about encouraging people to return to the community and supporting them there rather than encouraging them to withdraw from it. I make no apology for the existence of management pressure, which is there for proper financial reasons—to ensure that resources are used effectively—and also so that patients are not kept in hospital any longer than is strictly necessary.
The hon. Lady mentioned no-fault compensation. That is an important issue. For some time, the Opposition have agreed that the proper way in which to finance the health service is to do so within a cash-limited total resource. It is recognised that a free, publicly funded health service necessarily has limited resources: there is no longer any dispute about that.
As of last weekend, there also seems to be no dispute about the prospects of an immediate substantial increase in the resources available to the health service. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he foresaw no such increase, except in the context of a growing economy.
When the hon. Member for Peckham argues for no-fault compensation, she must explain from where the resources that are to finance that no-fault compensation are to be diverted. That is a relatively urgent issue because this evening she argued the case for extending the principle of no-fault compensation to making payments to those people who are suffering HIV infections largely as a result of blood transfusions. I understand the human argument

for that, but the House must remember that when a considerable amount of money was provided earlier this year for haemophiliacs who suffered the HIV infection as a result of treatment received from the health service, hon. Members of all parties told us that that was a special case because of the double jeopardy suffered by haemophiliacs who need to attend hospital for basic care simply to remain alive. It was argued that that special case should not become a precedent for the same principle to be applied to other groups.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment because I exempt her from this charge. She has been entirely consistent and has argued throughout that there should be no-fault compensation. However, the majority of hon. Members and of people outside the House who have pressed this case have said that haemophiliacs should be a special case because of double jeopardy and should therefore be provided with the cash without it being regarded as a precedent. The hon. Lady has been consistent and has argued that both the haemophiliacs and the group that we are now talking about should receive cash on a no-fault compensation basis.
However, that makes the question even more difficult for the hon. Lady because the further we go down the road of no-fault compensation, especially involving such large sums of money for each patient, the more she must explain, against the background of the pledge that was given by the leader of her party last Sunday—that there was no extra money for the health service—from where in the existing pattern of care in the health service the resources would come to pay for the pledge that she has given this evening.

Ms. Harman: It is for the Minister, who represents the Government, to explain why the Government are failing to provide compensation. We have always argued that the ex-gratia compensation paid to the haemophiliacs who became infected with HIV through blood transfusions should be available for all those who got HIV through blood transfusions. It was the Government who sought to say, "Let us separate off the haemophiliacs. Let us compensate them, but leave the others without hope."

Mr. Dorrell: I said that I exempted the hon. Lady from the charge, but she must still explain where the resources will come from.
Hon. Members of all parties, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and for Suffolk, Central, have commented on the importance of plain English. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central was anxious that the word "matron" should reappear in the health service's management charts. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West was concerned to ensure that the leaflets that are issued by the health service and by Government in general should be written in plain English. I entirely agree with that view. Within my Department, I have a particular aversion to a word that has been used to such an extent that it no longer means anything. I refer to "appropriate". There is now the view in the Department that it is no longer appropriate to use the word "appropriate" because it has been used in so many contexts that it has now lost its meaning. I quote that as another example of the importance of ensuring that plain


English is used. The French have a committee for maintaining the purity of the French language. if the Select Committee finds that it has time on its hands, perhaps it could appropriate such a role for itself.
Joined by his hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (M r. Ross) was concerned about the fact that a Select Committee that is composed entirely of hon. Members from Great Britain should consider reports from the Northern Ireland ombudsman. I understand the sensitivity of the issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand me if I say that it has wider ramifications than for the work of the ombudsman. Therefore, it is not a matter on which I would wish to comment further except to say that the specific planning example quoted by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East was not unfamiliar to a Member representing a Leicestershire constituency. I could take the hon. Gentleman to many sites in Leicestershire where exactly the same planning issues are being addressed. The problem is not specific to Northern Ireland but none the less I understand the hon. Gentleman's wider point.
This has been an interesting, useful and important debate concentrating on the work of an important institution. It has been a privilege for all those who have participated to have had the opportunity to do so.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sixth Form Education (Wickford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lighthown.]

10 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the anxieties of parents in the town of Wickford in my constituency. It is fairly unusual for a Member of Parliament to come before the House twice in a year about virtually the same problem. We hoped that the problem had been solved as a result of the debate that we had barely a year ago, but, sadly, I am back here tonight because the parents in my constituency are so upset about what is happening to the secondary schools in their area that they have asked me to ask the Minister to intervene on their behalf.
In the town of Wickford we had two good secondary schools. One was called Bromfords and the other was called Beauchamps. They were nice schools with good. healthy sixth forms. One school had over 100 pupils in its sixth form and the other had over 80. They were happy thriving communities and the parents were contented. Into that community in 1988 Essex education authority tossed a bombshell in the form of a plan to establish a tertiary college in nearby Basildon, to which it decided that pupils from our sixth forms would have to go.
We were given to understand that it was necessary that our pupils attend the college so that the size of the new college would justify the expenditure. Without my two sixth forms, the authority could not justify the expenditure of some £5 million on expanding the tertiary college. But we were told that the change. which was not welcomed, would make a much wider range of subjects available to the pupils, would provide better education all on one campus, in the end would save money and the college would be more efficient. The parents in my two schools were indignant. Almost 100 per cent. of them supported two large public meetings. We had a petition, which was signed by almost every parent at the two schools. That in itself was a remarkable occurrence.
The parents contemplated the option of taking their schools out of the control of Essex, but if they had chosen to do so they could not have kept their sixth forms. They were between the devil and the deep blue sea. So I brought the case to the House, hoping that the Secretary of State would overrule a foolish and unnecessary decision. But the Secretary of State saw fit to decide that Essex county council should have its way and that our children should be used in what was virtually a number-crunching exercise.
The children are not number-crunching material to their parents or to me, but at least we were offered the prospect of something better. That was when the council wanted to get its way. We now know that Essex county council was being told at that time by the chairman of the governors of the college, a gentleman called Mr. Tony Stockley, that the college would not be able to cope with the intake that the council contemplated. But the education committee, on the advice of its director of education, Mr. Sharp, was being told that this was the way forward—that there would be appropriate numbers, and that accommodation would be available.
The indignation and consternation amongst the parents can be imagined now that it has turned out that, for the entry that is currently contemplated, the college is short of 400 places. The duplicity of the Essex county council's


education committee is indicated by the fact that it knew all along that it would face some kind of problem. I am sure that other hon. Members, like me, think that it would he logical to leave the children in their current sixth forms while the problem was sorted out. However, Essex county council has other ideas. It wants to furnish temporary accommodation in a nearby school in Basildon—Woodlands school—at a cost of well over £100,000. This is a disgrace in view of the better facilities and better teaching conditions available on one campus. What these young people are being offered is infinitely inferior: empty spaces in a school to be patched up—almost botched up. The young people are to use the same staircases as young children in order to get to classrooms. They will not be in the mature environment of an adult campus. In fact, they are being dumped in unsatisfactory conditions.
Last night the parents held another meeting in Wickford to protest at what is happening to their children. Their protest is quite justified. As a result of the decision made in 1990, these two schools have suffered already. The intake from the feeder schools is down by 50 per cent. That is an indication of the fact that parents in the area want a school with a sixth form. They are now sending their children hither and yon, to towns like Billericay. Some are even looking as far afield as Chelmsford and down towards Southend for a school with a sixth form. Good teachers are being lost, as people of high quality like to have sixth form classes. As I spent 10 years teaching in a secondary school, I know how important the sixth form pinnacle is, not only to urge on the younger pupils, but to stimulate teachers and encourage the quality of teaching that is necessary.
The parents believe that there is demoralisation and that standards are going down. As we now realise, all of this is quite unnecessary because the sixth forms could have remained. I am asking the Minister to ensure that that will happen. The accommodation is there and using it would involve no additional expenditure. The equipment is also available. The two schools were already providing 30 subjects, so there was no shortage of choice. That was one of the reasons given for the closure of the sixth forms, but it was not a real reason. The parents want their children to stay where they are. No travelling is involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) will confirm, travel to Basildon will mean crossing a very busy main road—the A127. For Wickford people, Basildon might just as well be at the top of the Himalayas. That is how they regard the great chasm that the Al27 creates.
The community, including the young people, would be delighted if the Minister were to instruct Essex county council to leave the pupils where they are. That would be simple logic and common sense. I know that the Minister has a surfeit of wisdom in this field. I have often heard him speak in the House on the subject of education. Before becoming a member of the Government he extolled the virtues of the quality of education, particularly that which is provided in sixth forms. I know that my hon. Friend will be sympathetic to the case that I am arguing. The chairmen of the governors of both schools support my plea that he take that action. Gordon Wright, the chairman of the governors of Bromfords school, is a Labour member of Essex county council, but he, too, supports our case. The

chairman of the board of governors of Beauchamps school is standing tomorrow for the district council, so another respected and intelligent gentleman wants to keep the sixth form.
Of course, the numbers in the sixth forms have dropped in anticipation of the changes, but the two sixth forms between them would provide almost, although not quite, as many places as we need to accommodate at least the children who would otherwise be dumped in temporary accommodation. Four hundred pupils have to be accommodated. I learnt today that the message has gone out on the "pink paper"—an agenda which is not usually made public—that the tertiary college is having to squash classes together and add extra pupils. That will overstretch the wonderful new facilities which the children were promised would result from the move. So those children will not get as good teaching as they have been used to in the schools from which they came.
I am assured that there remain in the schools enough teachers with sixth form experience to carry on that work. Everything points to the need for the Minister to act as I know that, in his heart of hearts, he would want to act, in support of the parents. Those parents are bewildered that a Conservative Member of Parliament, dealing with a Conservative Government and ostensibly, I am sad to say, a Conservative Essex education committee, is faced with a situation in which they cannot be allowed their choice of education for their children—a right that we in the Conservative party believe that they should have. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we have let those parents down. It is time to reassure them that we will not allow the situation to continue, that we will no longer defer to the bureaucrats on Essex county council who have made such a botch-up of the whole sad business.
There is another path open to the parents. By great good fortune, the Secretary of State for Education and Science recently announced that schools wishing to opt out of education authority control need no longer wait five years to change their status. If the two schools could opt out now, they could keep their sixth forms—at least, I believe that to be the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon once had a similar sad story to tell, but it has had a much happier ending. I invite him to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and explain to the House exactly how parents in his constituency managed to solve their problem.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister at least to reassure parents in the two schools concerned that if he can help them in no other way—although I hope that he will be able to help in other ways—he will encourage their growing desire to opt out of the control of Essex county council, which has proved sadly inadequate. He could reassure the parents that if they decided to take such action, he would look favourably and quickly upon their request. Those changes, which are not welcomed by any of the parents involved, are due to take place in September, so we have a relatively short time. The encouragement of my hon. Friend the Minister would make all the difference to their going ahead with the opt-out provision. Anything that he can do to assure them that their children's futures will not be jeopardised by that awful muddle will be greatly welcomed.
I now invite my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon to give his side of the story, which throws light on that sad situation.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I shall invite him.

Mr. David Amess: I was here a year ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) raised this issue. It is sad that she must bring it to the attention of the House again this evening.
When Essex county council first proposed a tertiary college to the Department of Education, I had no doubt that my constituents would benefit more from the college than those of my hon. Friend, simply because of the distance involved. As my hon. Friend said, the A127 appears to form a barrier to her constituents in Wickford and Billericay, and I understand that. Throughout the eight years that I have represented my constituency, education standards in Basildon have been improving. Due to the Government's excellent reforms, local teachers have rallied magnificently to take full advantage of the opportunities provided. My own children go to a local state school, St. Anne Line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has visited, and she will verify that it is an excellent school.
Basildon has excellent secondary schools, such as Fryerns, Chalvedon, Iaindon, St. Anne Line, Barstable and Nicholas. There is no doubt that the sixth form entry has been dwindling in some of those schools, so they were pleased when the tertiary college was first mooted.
Basildon college is an excellent establishment and I have no doubt that the sixth form college will be successful. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will recall our battle with Essex county council in seeking to ensure that fair play took place when the governing body of Chalvedon school wished to ballot the parents to achieve grant-maintained status. I am proud to say that that school is now the first grant-maintained school in Essex. My hon. Friend the Minister recently received correspondence from parents of children at Chalvedon school raising the fair point about the possibility of retaining the sixth form.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has been tenacious in representing the views of parents, particularly those of Beauchamps and of Bromfords schools, and their desire to retain their sixth forms. Although the tertiary college is of enormous benefit to my constituents, it is surprising that, although the proposals about the viability of the college were put to the Department and the figures were presented, we now find that it is so over-subscribed that it must use the facilities of the excellent Woodlands school in my constituency. That is rather puzzling. Can it be that the notion of a tertiary college is so attractive that all 16 to 18-year-olds in our two constituencies have suddenly decided that they want to use it, or were the figures presented to the Department unrealistic?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look kindly upon the sensible points that have been raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Billericay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): It is normal form in debates such as this to compliment an hon. Member on securing the opportunity to put forward a constituency case. Tonight I must go further than that and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on her tenacity in pursuing this matter.
This is the second occasion on which post- 16 education in Basildon and Wickford has been the subject of an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay. I believe that consistency and persistency are the hallmarks not simply of a good constituency Member of Parliament, but of an effective one. My hon. Friend has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor on a number of occasions. She has tenaciously pursued an issue about which she and her constituents hold strong convictions.
I must also pay due tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who, in his own way, has pursued with great persistence the concern expressed by those of his constituents who favour the recreation of a sixth form at Chalvedon school.
Something has changed since our previous debate on this matter. Thanks to the policies of fostering choice pursued by the Government, and thanks to the new opportunities provided by the Education Reform Act 1988, Chalvedon school has become a welcome addition to the swelling ranks of grant-maintained schools. That school is popular and clearly viable. The head teacher and his governors have at heart the best interests of the children who attend the school.
The existence of a grant-maintained school in the Basildon and Wickford area will provide parents with a wider choice of options for their children than was previously available—thanks to the new opportunities made available by the Government under the Education Reform Act.
The creation of a tertiary college in Basildon will, in its own way, also help to provide parents and pupils with a wider range of post-16 options than was available before my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor approved, in January 1990, the reorganisation proposals published by Essex local education authority—proposals which are the subject of so much complaint from my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay.
The authority was prompted to reorganise post-16 education in the Basildon and Wickford area because the staying-on rate was so low, the examination success rate was not as good as it might have been and the sixth forms in the school were so small and fragmented that it was becoming difficult to provide a sufficiently wide range of options for their 16-year-olds. Obviously it does not represent good value for money to have small groups of pupils following a limited range of options. By concentrating post-16 schooling in a tertiary college, the range of options available inevitably increases and the education authority is able to make much better use of its teaching and other resources.
On numerous occasions the Government have made it clear that they are concerned to increase the staying-on rate beyond the age of 16 and the figures released only last week show that we are now succeeding. If we are to compete with our European partners in the marketplace, we must ensure that our children are educated to at least the same standards as those in France, Germany and our, other Community partners.
It is partly because we are so concerned about the relatively low staying-on rate in the United Kingdom that we have decided, as my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 21 March, to transfer responsibility for sixth form and tertiary colleges from local education authorities to a new funding council and to


give them much greater autonomy. I have no doubt that, just as the introduction of local management and grant-maintained schools will do much to improve standards in schools, so the greater autonomy that will pass to sixth form and tertiary colleges in the future will also lead to improved standards, wider options and increased staying-on rates.
For the youngsters of Basildon and Wickford it is, arguably, especially important to provide a wide range of post-16 options, because they have easy access to the London Docklands development area, where opportunities will abound for those who have shown, through their educational achievements, that they are equipped to cope with the new challenges of the next century.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has sought to argue that Beauchamps school, which lost its sixth form in the reorganisation which was approved as recently as January 1990, should be allowed to reintroduce its sixth form. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon argued similarly in support of the reintroduction of a sixth form at Chalvedon school.
Until recently grant-maintained schools have been discouraged from seeking to change their character during the first five years of their independence. My right hon. and learned Friend said last week that he saw little worthwhile purpose in continuing this five-year rule and that he was prepared to consider proposals for changes in character put to him by grant-maintained schools at any sensible interval after they had been established. In announcing this change, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it was inevitable that grant-maintained schools would want to develop their own distinctive personalities in response to local parent demand and changing circumstances. He gave as an example the possibility that schools might wish to publish proposals for establishing sixth forms.
My right hon. and learned Friend has to judge each application for change of character on its individual merits. Since it might be considered prejudicial to that consideration, I cannot comment on what might happen should proposals be published by the governors of Chalvedon school to reintroduce a sixth form.
Post-16 provision in respect of pupils attending Beauchamps school is a matter for Essex local education authority. If it should, at any time in the future, decide to publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 for the reintroduction of a sixth form at Beauchamps school, those proposals, too, will be carefully considered by my right hon. and learned Friend.
I think it only fair to point out, however, in the light of criticisms which have been made by a number of citizens of Basildon and Wickford, that Essex local education authority expects Basildon tertiary college to have to cater for an intake in September, on the basis of indications already provided, of around 1,436 full-time equivalent students, a figure which includes 91 applicants from Beauchamps school, 94 from Chalvedon and 63 from Bromfords, and which is so far above the LEA's original expectations that it has had to make arrangements, to which my hon. Friends referred, to provide additional temporary accommodation for the college in the nearby Woodlands school. I should perhaps stress, since there has

been some misunderstanding locally, that this accommodation will only be used temporarily by the college. There is no question of the LEA reintroducing a sixth form at Woodlands school.
By way of comparison, the number of sixth formers, including first and second years, in the nine Basildon and Wickford secondary schools when the decision was taken to establish a tertiary college was about 400, and the number of sixth formers currently at Chalvedon school is 64 and at Beauchamps school 81. It could be argued, I think—certainly Essex LEA would see it that way—that the decision to concentrate post-16 education in the tertiary college has already proved to be a success, in that it has already led to a considerable—some might say dramatic—increase in the number of 16-year-olds wishing to stay on.
I ought also to make it clear—since this seems to have been another cause of misunderstanding in Basildon and Wickford—that the capital costs of establishing the new tertiary college have been nowhere near the figure of £12 million which has apparently gained wide currency. My right hon. and learned Friend has in fact authorised Essex LEA, through its annual capital guideline, to spend in total up to £868,000 on the new college.
I fully appreciate, as does my right hon. and learned Friend, that some pupils will be better suited to the traditional school sixth form. To its credit, Essex LEA also currently maintains a number of secondary schools with large and efficient sixth forms and it has, I understand, no plans to change them. I further understand that it would be prepared to allow pupils in the Basildon and Wickford area who would prefer to pursue post-16 studies in a school sixth form to attend sixth forms in schools in Billericay, Brentwood or Southend, all of which are within reasonable reach of Basildon and Wickford.
We set great store by the breadth of opportunity which is provided for pupils and parents. Pupils in the Basildon and Wickford area now have the opportunity to attend a school maintained by the LEA, or a grant-maintained school. At the age of 16, they have the opportunity of pursuing traditional sixth form courses in Billericay, Brentwood or Southend, or traditional and vocational courses in the tertiary college.
We are also concerned to ensure that local education authorities and schools themselves make best use of the resources available to them. That means, in terms of post-16 provision, that teachers should teach groups of more than five or six at a time, and that the facilities available should not be used by such small groups; and this is not only because tuition on this scale does not represent good value, but because it may not be good for the students themselves.
My hon. Friend is technically asking me to rescind a decision taken by my predecessor. I have no power to do so. However, I have suggested a route forward which she may like to consider.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay and Basildon. They have served splendidly the interests of their constituents who continue to oppose the reorganisation, but I hope, in the interests of all the children in Basildon and Wickford, that those who oppose the reorganisation will at least be prepared to give the college a chance to succeed and to let the schools in Basildon and Wickford—most of which, it must be said, did not object to the establishment of a tertiary college—get on with the task of preparing the children in their


care to face the future confidently and capably, whichever course they may subsequently choose to pursue, given the range of options that this Government have now made available to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.